Author Topic: SSPX doctrinal declaration (Read 4269 times)

Machabees · « **on:** May 18, 2013, 11:39:39 PM »

Attention:

So this does not go un-noticed.

When Bishop Fellay put together and signed the official SSPX Doctrinal Declaration on April 15, 2012, on behalf of all of the SSPX Priests and Members (SSPX Brothers, SSPX Sisters, SSPX Oblates, and Third Order members), and he had delivered it to the Pope, Bishop Fellay, and [all] of the SSPX, have made a professed statement, that:

In that signed Legal Docuмent -a doctrinal declaration- for all the world to see, according to the SSPX, when Bishop Fellay had “legitimized” the Novus Ordo mass, they have effectively endorsed Pope Benedict’s XVI Moto Proprio, stating that the Novus Ordo mass is the PRIMARY and “ordinary” rite of mass; that is, the “official” rite of mass of the Catholic Church; and the Tridentine Latin Mass of the Saints is “extra-ordinary” –it is SECONDARY to the Catholic Church!

This is a very grave theological error that has huge consequences…

So it shows in this overall crisis in the Church from Vatican II, and its [demonic] errors, it had shown to even seep in, unguarded, like had happened to Campos, FSSP, Redemptorists, and others, which had caused the Leaders of the SSPX, and many priests with them by consent, omission, or by apathy, a height of betrayal and liberalism displayed in that -Doctrinal declaration- which goes deep, as it had done to the rest of the Church, working its way into their doctrine, concept, spirituality, ecclesiology, phycology, philosophy, and function; now it is in their fabric and creeping to their roots when they want to “change” with a different meaning of their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, of what he had stated to them and to the world; to where the new-SSPX now punishes, disciplines, and expels any Member within its order who do not consent to this “new Doctrine”; along with using the Sacraments of the Church as a “weapon” against the faithful who do not agree with their new orientation –an orientation that is contrary and foreign to Archbishop Lefebvre!

So when the neo-SSPX and the neo-SSPX faithful what to parrot Menzingen’s new slogan to "save face": “There isn’t a deal yet; so there is no problem”. –Beware! The Doctrinal declaration was truly a signed and planned “Legal” Docuмent that was DESIRED to be agreed upon! It was kept in secret from its Members to see for 1-year; even denied of it's existence; until forced out into the open! Bishop Fellay had also stated that he was surprised and disappointed that his (scandalous) Doctrinal declaration was not accepted! Bishop Fellay also stated and hoped that Pope Benedict XVI would still “do something” to “reconcile” them into the conciliar fold before he “retired” form being a Pope!

So there is no illusion, Bishop Fellay believed and DESIRED everything in his (scandalous) Doctrinal declaration was to be accepted and signed by conciliar Rome; especially, with him "legitimizing" the Novus Ordo mass, is the big "elephant" in the room!

“Lex orandi est lex credendi.” -“The law of prayer is the law of belief.”

“If you do not live according to what you believe, then one day you will believe according to the way you live.”

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** May 19, 2013, 03:31:31 AM »

Achtung! (Ethelred shout-out!!)

Quote from: Machabees

Attention:

So this does not go un-noticed.

When Bishop Fellay put together and signed the official SSPX Doctrinal Declaration on April 15, 2012, on behalf of all of the SSPX Priests and Members (SSPX Brothers, SSPX Sisters, SSPX Oblates, and Third Order members), and he had delivered it to the Pope, Bishop Fellay, and [all] of the SSPX, have [thereby] made a professed statement, that:

In that signed Legal Docuмent -a doctrinal declaration- for all the world to see, according to the SSPX, when Bishop Fellay had “legitimized” the Novus Ordo mass, they have effectively endorsed Pope Benedict’s XVI Moto Proprio, stating that the Novus Ordo mass is the PRIMARY and “ordinary” rite of mass; that is, the “official” rite of mass of the Catholic Church; and the Tridentine Latin Mass of the Saints is “extra-ordinary” –it is SECONDARY to the Catholic Church!

This is a very grave theological error that has huge consequences…

Absolutely! Ausgezeichnet!

One more of the many consequences that should not be overlooked is,
that the one additional word "legitimately" added to the text from 1988
that ABL signed and then rescinded his signature on it the following day,
is that that one word, "legitimately" (which modifies "promulgated")
means that not one of us has any right to the TLM at any independent
or SSPX chapel, or otherwise than the Indultery Mass or the FSSP or the
ICK or even the NovusOrdoNewmass. One word demolishes the entire
existence of the state of necessity. And therefore, to say that this text
is "the same as what ABL signed in 1988" (which Fr. Rostand, Fr.
Laisney, Fr. Couture, et. al. have been saying for the past two months
since the AFD was LEAKED -- OH, why didn't +Fellay want it published?
Well, now we know -- he had a lot to HIDE in it, didn't he!!) is a LIE.

Quote

So it shows in this overall crisis in the Church from Vatican II, and its [demonic] errors, it had shown to even seep in, unguarded, like had happened to Campos, FSSP, Redemptorists, and others, which had caused the Leaders of the SSPX, and many priests with them by consent, omission, or by apathy, a height of betrayal and liberalism displayed in that -Doctrinal declaration- which goes deep, as it had done to the rest of the Church, working its way into their doctrine, concept, spirituality, ecclesiology, [psychology], philosophy, and function; now it is in their fabric and creeping to their roots when they want to “change” with a different meaning of their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, of what he had stated to them and to the world; to where the new-SSPX now punishes, disciplines, and expels any Member within its ~~order~~ [association] who does not consent to this “new Doctrine”; along with using the Sacraments of the Church as a “weapon” against the faithful who do not agree with their new orientation –an orientation that is contrary and foreign to [that of] Archbishop Lefebvre!

So when the neo-SSPX and the neo-SSPX faithful [want] to parrot Menzingen’s new slogan to "save face": “There isn’t a deal yet; so there is no problem”. –Beware!

PARROT is right! . . . . (Sorry, E-R I just ran out of German words. HAHAHA)

I am so glad you're putting your finger on this monster. I have faced it
squarely and it is indeed a MONSTER! The Accordistas have been so
THOROUGHLY BRIAINWASHED that it's not FUNNY.

How could this have happened? Your grandchildren will ask you one day,
if you live that long GOD WILLING. So sit up, pay attention, and learn,
because these are the days when it's happening!!

The Accordistas look at you and say that "you are so hateful" for taking
notice of what the Menzingen-denizens are doing. You have no right to
even THINK about what they forbid you to think about. You do not know
the EVIL that you do!! Shame, shame, shame.

They refuse to see the most obvious things, because they have been
MIND-NUMBED. How does one man in Switzerland effect the mind-
numbing of the majority of the world's pew-sitters -- and not only them
but their friends who only RARELY assist at SSPX chapel Mass and/or
functions? How does that happen?

They have been trained like parrots, to repeat what they are told, and
they have been trained very well, very well indeed. And NOT A FEW of
them have never had any personal lessons. It is mind-boggling, the
scope of this thing, this MONSTER. It is truly DIABOLICAL.

Quote

The Doctrinal declaration was truly a signed and planned “Legal” Docuмent that was DESIRED to be agreed upon! It was kept in secret from its Members to see for 1-year; it's existence [was] even denied; until [it was] forced out into the open! Bishop Fellay had also stated that he was surprised and disappointed that his (scandalous) Doctrinal declaration was not accepted! Bishop Fellay also stated and hoped that Pope Benedict XVI would still “do something” to “reconcile” them into the conciliar fold before he “retired” [from] being a Pope!

Now, when you ask their Accordistas any question that puts the bee on
the deceptive tactics of these malefactors, you get the blank look treatment.
And THEY CAN'T HELP IT! They are UNABLE TO SEE! I'm telling you there
has been a diabolical fog of BLINDNESS that has descended upon the
followers of these denizens, and it is not a natural thing. It can only be
explained by spiritual means. This is not a battle of wits. It is a battle of
principalities and powers in high places. St. Paul had it right 1964 years
ago.

Quote

So there is no illusion, Bishop Fellay believed and DESIRED everything in his (scandalous) Doctrinal declaration was to be accepted and signed by conciliar Rome; especially, with him "legitimizing" the Novus Ordo mass, is the big "elephant" in the room!

“Lex orandi est lex credendi.” -“The law of prayer is the law of belief.”

“If you do not live according to what you believe, then one day you will believe according to the way you live.”

There is no doubt. The Menzingen-denizens are hell-bent on the total
destruction of the SSPX and they lead a load of lemmings who are clueless.

And if you DARE mention the fact, you are HATEFUL.

Please read The Recusant #7 thread. It's the same topic.

Wessex · « **Reply #2 on:** May 20, 2013, 08:16:43 AM »

For some time now we have been splitting the SSPX into two camps. We might say the younger generation is now instructing the older generation, or, better, the liberal wing (always in today's leadership positions!) is instructing the conservative wing. Although Rome blocked a well-planned liberal initiative, the Society is still stuck with a liberal management hawking its liberal manifesto, a manifesto that was actually improved from something more horrible at the chapter meeting.

How do district superiors who one by one came out and supported the proposed deal respond a year later with one leg firmly planted inside the conciliar world? If they are true to themselves, they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition. The past tells us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to push on rather than backtrack. In this weak state, the leadership of the Society cannot but succuмb to a clever approach from Rome at some future date. But if this happens, with Fr. Cekada's practical eye, the devil will be in the detail of an agreement and unhappy priests could leave along with their congregations. Maybe Rome has anticipated this and does not want the trouble and adverse publicity. Traditionalists are a difficult lot, thankfully!

bernadette · « **Reply #3 on:** May 20, 2013, 08:52:39 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

For some time now we have been splitting the SSPX into two camps. We might say the younger generation is now instructing the older generation, or, better, the liberal wing (always in today's leadership positions!) is instructing the conservative wing. Although Rome blocked a well-planned liberal initiative, the Society is still stuck with a liberal management hawking its liberal manifesto, a manifesto that was actually improved from something more horrible at the chapter meeting.

How do district superiors who one by one came out and supported the proposed deal respond a year later with one leg firmly planted inside the conciliar world? If they are true to themselves, they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition. The past tells us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to push on rather than backtrack. In this weak state, the leadership of the Society cannot but succuмb to a clever approach from Rome at some future date. But if this happens, with Fr. Cekada's practical eye, the devil will be in the detail of an agreement and unhappy priests could leave along with their congregations. Maybe Rome has anticipated this and does not want the trouble and adverse publicity. Traditionalists are a difficult lot, thankfully!

What did Bergoglio call traditionalists? Stubborn and hardhearted? Why....he even endorsed and re-elevated Vatican II to the utmost sublimity....

"Everybody seems happy about the presence of the Holy Spirit but it’s not really the case and there is still that temptation to resist it…. The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit…. But after 50 years, have we done everything that the Holy Spirit said to us in the Council? In the continuity of the growth of the Church which was the Council?"

Wow...the beautiful work of the Holy Spirit has brought about plummeting vocations, massive loss of souls, and pedophilia! Just to name a few...

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** May 20, 2013, 09:48:44 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

For some time now we have been splitting the SSPX into two camps. We might say the younger generation is now instructing the older generation, or, better, the liberal wing (always in today's leadership positions!) is instructing the conservative wing.

Although Rome blocked a well-planned liberal initiative, the Society is still stuck with a liberal management hawking its liberal manifesto, a manifesto that was actually improved from something more horrible at the chapter meeting.

How do district superiors who one by one came out and supported the proposed deal respond a year later with one leg firmly planted inside the conciliar world?

If they are true to themselves, they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition.

The past tells us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to push on rather than backtrack.

In this weak state, the leadership of the Society cannot but succuмb to a clever approach from Rome at some future date. But if this happens, with Fr. Cekada's practical eye, the devil will be in the detail of an agreement and unhappy priests could leave along with their congregations. Maybe Rome has anticipated this and does not want the trouble and adverse publicity. Traditionalists are a difficult lot, thankfully!

The real possibility that "unhappy priests could leave along with their
congregations" could be a major component of the decisions to transfer
many of the good priests to distant locations, often times to areas where
the language is a major challenge to the priest being moved there.

Once moved far away, if such a priest tries to remain in correspondence
with his distant followers, his correspondence is then monitored. This is
not honoring his rights to act as a good priest, but rather collecting a
"file" to make a case against him, so he can be expelled in the future.

This is why "...they must continue to use the manual that was prepared
by Menzingen for a period of transition."

What chance is there this "liberal wing in the leadership" will convert,
and become more traditional as ABL would have hoped? "The past tells
us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to
push on rather than backtrack."

As ABL said, "This would be our death."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** May 20, 2013, 09:58:32 AM »

Quote from: bernadette

...the 'beautiful work of the Holy Spirit'

has brought about plummeting vocations,

massive loss of souls,

and pedophilia! ...

Far too many do not recognize the loss of souls as having happened -- this
would cease to be the case if the Third Secret would be released.

I wonder if the Third Secret is not being mercifully withheld by the hand of
God, for once it becomes known, then mankind becomes responsible to
recognize it for what it is - the truth. How many would, even then, refuse
to believe it?!?!

How many would then perpetrate the unforgivable sin, the refusal to listen
to the immaculate words of the spiritual spouse of the Holy Ghost?

Wessex · « **Reply #6 on:** May 20, 2013, 06:33:41 PM »

The real possibility that "unhappy priests could leave along with their
congregations" could be a major component of the decisions to transfer
many of the good priests to distant locations, often times to areas where
the language is a major challenge to the priest being moved there.

Once moved far away, if such a priest tries to remain in correspondence
with his distant followers, his correspondence is then monitored. This is
not honoring his rights to act as a good priest, but rather collecting a
"file" to make a case against him, so he can be expelled in the future.

This is why "...they must continue to use the manual that was prepared
by Menzingen for a period of transition."

What chance is there this "liberal wing in the leadership" will convert,
and become more traditional as ABL would have hoped? "The past tells
us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to
push on rather than backtrack."

As ABL said, "This would be our death."

Yes, we harbour the notion that Max 'Stassi' Krah has a file on every priest containing a defection coefficient! But this could measure two ways: positively towards Rome or negatively away from Rome!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** May 20, 2013, 10:01:52 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: I
The real possibility that "unhappy priests could leave along with their
congregations" could be a major component of the decisions to transfer
many of the good priests to distant locations, often times to areas where
the language is a major challenge to the priest being moved there.

Once moved far away, if such a priest tries to remain in correspondence
with his distant followers, his correspondence is then monitored. This is
not honoring his rights to act as a good priest, but rather collecting a
"file" to make a case against him, so he can be expelled in the future.

This is why "...they must continue to use the manual that was prepared
by Menzingen for a period of transition."

What chance is there this "liberal wing in the leadership" will convert,
and become more traditional as ABL would have hoped? "The past tells
us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to
push on rather than backtrack."

As ABL said, "This would be our death."

Yes, we harbour the notion that Max 'Stassi' Krah has a file on every priest containing a defection coefficient!

But this could measure two ways: positively towards Rome or negatively away from Rome!

"But this could measure two ways: positively towards Rome or negatively away from Rome!"

I hear you saying that Krah's updatable[!] defection coefficient could
be set up to measure one way, or the other way, or perhaps both
one or the other, e.g., a positive value could be "toward" and a negative
value could be "away."

How close is that?

Warning: don't read this unless you want to know about the Format codes.

P.S. When your preview of a post does not process the codes but leaves
them as stuff in brackets [] to clutter the page, it's because FIRST, you
did not check the box to the left of "Format MbCode?" above the Reply
and Preview buttons. But to be sure that they will be processed, as above,
you have to be sure that every "quote" code is followed by ONLY ONE
"/quote" code, and every "/quote" code is preceded by ONLY ONE "quote"
code, such that these codes are in exact pairs and proper order. You can
have multiple "quote" codes in a row, or before any or all "/quote" codes
are included, but they still must be in a one-to-one correspondence, lest
the system AUTOMATICALLY UNCHECKS the Format MbCode box, and
then you must correct the improper codes AND re-check the box before
the system will display the product of processed codes. You can, as it
seems you did above, just delete the "quote" codes, but still, you have to
either re-check the box left of "Format MbCode?" or, failing that, you have
to COPY your entire post (with "quote" codes deleted) and return to
the thread and click any of the "quote" or "reply" buttons again to get
a fresh Reply screen into which you can PASTE your saved post, only
because that will AUTOMATICALLY RE-CHECK the "Format MbCode?" box.
This is important even if all the "quote" codes are removed because
the italics, color, bold, size, font and whatever will also be affected by that
lousy box not being checked.

Wessex · « **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2013, 11:41:05 AM »

I hear you saying that Krah's updatable[!] defection coefficient could
be set up to measure one way, or the other way, or perhaps both
one or the other, e.g., a positive value could be "toward" and a negative
value could be "away."

How close is that?
That's it. Zero would be Menzingen's current position vis a vis Rome, therefore members' defectibility would need updating from time to time. The latest none-agreement has left keen members exposed. On previous occasions they joined ED bodies. In negative territory, there may have been a stay of execution but not enough to see some go.

This may seem fanciful and it is fun guessing HQ's office routine. Having a legal office monitor five hundred priests though would be rather expensive unless Max farms it out cheaply to Dresden University's expert Surveillance Dept. Schhh, I must not give him any ideas ......

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2013, 12:14:22 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

For some time now we have been splitting the SSPX into two camps. We might say the younger generation is now instructing the older generation, or, better, the liberal wing (always in today's leadership positions!) is instructing the conservative wing. Although Rome blocked a well-planned liberal initiative, the Society is still stuck with a liberal management hawking its liberal manifesto, a manifesto that was actually improved from something more horrible at the chapter meeting.

How do district superiors who one by one came out and supported the proposed deal respond a year later with one leg firmly planted inside the conciliar world? If they are true to themselves, they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition. The past tells us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to push on rather than backtrack. In this weak state, the leadership of the Society cannot but succuмb to a clever approach from Rome at some future date. But if this happens, with Fr. Cekada's practical eye, the devil will be in the detail of an agreement and unhappy priests could leave along with their congregations. Maybe Rome has anticipated this and does not want the trouble and adverse publicity. Traditionalists are a difficult lot, thankfully!

Wessex said:

"...they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition."

:surprised:

There is a manual?

Is it public?

Has it been posted on the internet anywhere?

Wessex · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2013, 05:57:18 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Wessex
For some time now we have been splitting the SSPX into two camps. We might say the younger generation is now instructing the older generation, or, better, the liberal wing (always in today's leadership positions!) is instructing the conservative wing. Although Rome blocked a well-planned liberal initiative, the Society is still stuck with a liberal management hawking its liberal manifesto, a manifesto that was actually improved from something more horrible at the chapter meeting.

How do district superiors who one by one came out and supported the proposed deal respond a year later with one leg firmly planted inside the conciliar world? If they are true to themselves, they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition. The past tells us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to push on rather than backtrack. In this weak state, the leadership of the Society cannot but succuмb to a clever approach from Rome at some future date. But if this happens, with Fr. Cekada's practical eye, the devil will be in the detail of an agreement and unhappy priests could leave along with their congregations. Maybe Rome has anticipated this and does not want the trouble and adverse publicity. Traditionalists are a difficult lot, thankfully!

Wessex said:

"...they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition."

:surprised:

There is a manual?

Is it public?

Has it been posted on the internet anywhere?

I was speculating on the existence of one; at the bare minimum the district superiors must have been briefed beforehand when an agreement was on the cards and told to prepare their parishes for the changes anticipated.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2013, 06:19:09 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Wessex
For some time now we have been splitting the SSPX into two camps. We might say the younger generation is now instructing the older generation, or, better, the liberal wing (always in today's leadership positions!) is instructing the conservative wing. Although Rome blocked a well-planned liberal initiative, the Society is still stuck with a liberal management hawking its liberal manifesto, a manifesto that was actually improved from something more horrible at the chapter meeting.

How do district superiors who one by one came out and supported the proposed deal respond a year later with one leg firmly planted inside the conciliar world? If they are true to themselves, they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition. The past tells us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to push on rather than backtrack. In this weak state, the leadership of the Society cannot but succuмb to a clever approach from Rome at some future date. But if this happens, with Fr. Cekada's practical eye, the devil will be in the detail of an agreement and unhappy priests could leave along with their congregations. Maybe Rome has anticipated this and does not want the trouble and adverse publicity. Traditionalists are a difficult lot, thankfully!

Wessex said:

"...they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition."

:surprised:

There is a manual?

Is it public?

Has it been posted on the internet anywhere?

I was speculating on the existence of one; at the bare minimum the district superiors must have been briefed beforehand when an agreement was on the cards and told to prepare their parishes for the changes anticipated.

Ahh....yes....

Blushing...

Yes, there was a speech by a visiting priest at my parish last year who made a speech about how we musn't talk too much about Jєωs and Freemasons when all the new people start attending after the deal.

Matto · « **Reply #12 on:** May 22, 2013, 07:07:36 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Yes, there was a speech by a visiting priest at my parish last year who made a speech about how we musn't talk too much about Jєωs and Freemasons when all the new people start attending after the deal.

How awful. What a faithless ... .

bernadette · « **Reply #13 on:** May 22, 2013, 09:05:23 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Wessex
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Wessex
For some time now we have been splitting the SSPX into two camps. We might say the younger generation is now instructing the older generation, or, better, the liberal wing (always in today's leadership positions!) is instructing the conservative wing. Although Rome blocked a well-planned liberal initiative, the Society is still stuck with a liberal management hawking its liberal manifesto, a manifesto that was actually improved from something more horrible at the chapter meeting.

How do district superiors who one by one came out and supported the proposed deal respond a year later with one leg firmly planted inside the conciliar world? If they are true to themselves, they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition. The past tells us that those that have embarked on such a process are more likely to push on rather than backtrack. In this weak state, the leadership of the Society cannot but succuмb to a clever approach from Rome at some future date. But if this happens, with Fr. Cekada's practical eye, the devil will be in the detail of an agreement and unhappy priests could leave along with their congregations. Maybe Rome has anticipated this and does not want the trouble and adverse publicity. Traditionalists are a difficult lot, thankfully!

Wessex said:

"...they must continue to use the manual that was prepared by Menzingen for a period of transition."

:surprised:

There is a manual?

Is it public?

Has it been posted on the internet anywhere?

I was speculating on the existence of one; at the bare minimum the district superiors must have been briefed beforehand when an agreement was on the cards and told to prepare their parishes for the changes anticipated.

Ahh....yes....

Blushing...

Yes, there was a speech by a visiting priest at my parish last year who made a speech about how we musn't talk too much about Jєωs and Freemasons when all the new people start attending after the deal.

Yes, I remember the mention at my chapel, instructing that we should be understanding when the great influx of NO faithful would occur at our chapel...they were counting their chickens before they hatched! Never a wise thing to do...

Wessex · « **Reply #14 on:** May 23, 2013, 09:45:22 AM »

It is almost as though we are able to write the script for the new Society with or without a deal. Bereft of its former political dimension and anxious to embrace the conciliar world where it can, parishes will become more outlets for the performance of old-style liturgies without clear doctrinal underpinnings: the maintenance of the appearance of tradition.