Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on February 21, 2016, 06:13:10 PM
-
They just had a meeting with the Priors at the end of January. At this meeting, they were informed about what is in the works. The meeting was one direction, INFORMING the priors of what's coming, as opposed to asking for any input.
A deal with Rome IS still in the works. The official story -- the deception -- will be that Rome is just accepting us "as we are" unilaterally. Of course this is false, because it's a fact of history that the SSPX has already transformed (past tense) into something unrecognizable. Priests have been ejected or at least convinced to leave, a bishop has been kicked out, bookstores have been purged, the whole organization has been "re-branded", the Archbishop's works have been censored (even to the point of SUING close friends of the Archbishop who wanted to publish his works!)
Unilateral is from the Latin unus, a, um ("one") and latus, lateris ("side"). One-sided.
Long story short, it's TOO LATE for anything "unilateral" because the SSPX side has already been feverishly working over the past few years to make itself more palatable to Modernist Rome. And we're talking about actions that are past tense -- no speculation is involved.
Remember those chapel(s) -- I believe there was one in Michigan -- which have signs that don't say anything about SSPX, Traditional, or Latin Mass? That ties into this. The Personal Prelature will have to lose the "SSPX" identity, which will conveniently cut loose any remaining "baggage" of Archbishop Lefebvre (whatever they haven't managed to purge yet).
It's all over.
Apparently there wasn't any reaction or protest. (Which isn't too surprising. The X degree boiling water which will kill a frog is only 2 degrees warmer than last week's water -- which was "X - 2" degrees -- which wasn't hot enough to do damage. Classic frog boil.)
Naturally everyone who was A) able to see clearly and B) inclined to have a problem with the new orientation has already made their move over the past few years. The remaining priests are "compromised" from being silent for so long. They will be frog boiled the rest of the way until they end up on so many dinner plates.
Kyrie eleison!
-
Was any indication given as to how soon this union would take place?
-
Was any indication given as to how soon this union would take place?
They seem to be moving at a good clip. But that having been said, it is most likely a deal will be announced sometime during the "Year of Mercy" which ends Dec 8, 2016.
Each priest -- SSPX as well as independent "Friends of the Society" -- will be able to participate in the "deal", by signing a certain Profession of Faith.
-
The deal was done a long time ago. Everything is done in phases.
Why do they still close down Catholic Churches.
Let's pray that the Mass of all Time and moral theology teachings remains intact.
Let's pray that Priests that our Priests will remain pure and holy.
-
Does the Chapel in Michigan even have a sign being Catholic?
One way or another, we are back to the penal days.
-
Calling this impending agreement "unilateral" is very deceptive.
Say a group of Muslim terrorists took 20 people hostage. Everyone would be concerned with the fate of the hostages. Normally you'd have negotiations to try to get the hostages released, with the terrorists making various demands.
But say that the hostage situation dragged on for several weeks, with no progress being made.
Their demands were pretty severe: They wanted Texas to adopt Sharia Law.
Then all the sudden, they decided to just unilaterally let the hostages go.
But what if it turned out that Texas had passed several laws over the past few weeks bringing the state closer to Sharia law? What if they had forbidden pork, forbidden alcohol, forbidden women working, etc.?
How can you say the terrorists "unilaterally" decided to release the hostages, when the other side basically capitulated -- albeit secretly -- to all the things they knew would please the terrorists?
That's called BI-LATERAL or you might say "pretending to be unilateral, but with lots of secret concessions from one side".
If Texas openly capitulated, everyone would have a problem with them selling out our American way of life in favor of Muslim Sharia Law. But if they did it secretly, maybe some people wouldn't notice?
Now this is a pretty crazy example, I'll give you that. Who wouldn't notice something like Texas requiring its women to be at home, and wear burqas when they go out in public (escorted by a man, of course)?
But then again, reality is stranger than fiction. We have TONS of evidence that Bishop Fellay's neo-SSPX has made countless changes over the past few years to make itself different -- and more appealing -- to the drastically-different-than-itself Conciliar Rome it's trying to woo.
And yet some people don't see it! Maybe Texas could get away with secretly implementing Sharia Law too. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
-
If clergy and laity under the SSPX will be required to sign a Profession of Faith, then that is a capitulation. In effect, they are being received as if they were Protestants.
Yet, we must recall recently that Lutherans at the Vatican were given Communion without Confession or any Profession of Faith.
-
There are Protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism. One is pastor with wife, children and grandchildren of the biggest parishes in the diocese.
-
Each priest -- SSPX as well as independent "Friends of the Society" -- will be able to participate in the "deal", by signing a certain Profession of Faith.
[/color]
This is good.
Then the battle-lines of the xSPX split will become more clear, as in the French Revolution.
(http://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/bajaage/5b68603b0fc5abeef0e95699fb9d4553/l22-660269.jpg)
You will have the modern day form of the non-juring SSPX priest who refuses to sign the "profession of newChurch faith".
(http://de.catholicnewsagency.com/img/cache/810/schmidberger_fellay_1450348737.jpg)
You have to hand it to old Schmidbergy.
Sly as a masonic fox, he promoted "prelature", the same ruse used by Opus judei.
-
They just had a meeting with the Priors at the end of January. At this meeting, they were informed about what is in the works. The meeting was one direction, INFORMING the priors of what's coming, as opposed to asking for any input.
A deal with Rome IS still in the works. The official story -- the deception -- will be that Rome is just accepting us "as we are" unilaterally. Of course this is false, because it's a fact of history that the SSPX has already transformed (past tense) into something unrecognizable. Priests have been ejected or at least convinced to leave, a bishop has been kicked out, bookstores have been purged, the whole organization has been "re-branded", the Archbishop's works have been censored (even to the point of SUING close friends of the Archbishop who wanted to publish his works!)
Unilateral is from the Latin unus, a, um ("one") and latus, lateris ("side"). One-sided.
Long story short, it's TOO LATE for anything "unilateral" because the SSPX side has already been feverishly working over the past few years to make itself more palatable to Modernist Rome. And we're talking about actions that are past tense -- no speculation is involved.
Remember those chapel(s) -- I believe there was one in Michigan -- which have signs that don't say anything about SSPX, Traditional, or Latin Mass? That ties into this. The Personal Prelature will have to lose the "SSPX" identity, which will conveniently cut loose any remaining "baggage" of Archbishop Lefebvre (whatever they haven't managed to purge yet).
It's all over.
Apparently there wasn't any reaction or protest. (Which isn't too surprising. The X degree boiling water which will kill a frog is only 2 degrees warmer than last week's water -- which was "X - 2" degrees -- which wasn't hot enough to do damage. Classic frog boil.)
Naturally everyone who was A) able to see clearly and B) inclined to have a problem with the new orientation has already made their move over the past few years. The remaining priests are "compromised" from being silent for so long. They will be frog boiled the rest of the way until they end up on so many dinner plates.
Kyrie eleison!
I am not doubting the veracity of your story but where did you get your information from?
-
I am not doubting the veracity of your story but where did you get your information from?
The information about Bp Fellay meeting with the priors to say the recognition is imminent, there being no real dissent, and that the priests received that same information this past week all came from a Resistance priest. He said there would be something all priests would be required to sign.
-
Okay thank you. It makes sense. It is absolutely clever.
-
This isn't the first time something was posted here as coming from an anonymous priest about the same spill of the impending deal. These posts are actually starting to get old. They remind of those guys who declare the end of the world and give a specific date,then it doesn't happen, so they try for another round. If the year of mercy comes and goes and still no deal, nobody will remember this thread anyways.
-
This isn't the first time something was posted here as coming from an anonymous priest about the same spill of the impending deal. These posts are actually starting to get old. They remind of those guys who declare the end of the world and give a specific date,then it doesn't happen, so they try for another round. If the year of mercy comes and goes and still no deal, nobody will remember this thread anyways.
I guess the question is where did this Resistance priest get his information from?
-
You have to hand it to old Schmidbergy.
Sly as a masonic fox, he promoted "prelature", the same ruse used by Opus judei.
[/color]
Schmidbergoglio
(https://spunkybong.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/06-riding-subway-as-cardinal-2008-670.jpg?w=639&h=432)
-
There was an "all hands" priestly meeting in Winona this past week, I believe.
Possibly some talk generated at this get-together?
Fr. Wegner can't monitor all the priest's phones yet...
But the mascot for "Phone Sheriff" reminds me of him.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBWtlrn1I4QJmYqePGfo5xy5lBubHAxe_VO2m564lgvIYYzE6z)
-
There are Protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism. One is pastor with wife, children and grandchildren of the biggest parishes in the diocese.
Which diocese is this?!
-
This isn't the first time something was posted here as coming from an anonymous priest about the same spill of the impending deal. These posts are actually starting to get old. They remind of those guys who declare the end of the world and give a specific date,then it doesn't happen, so they try for another round. If the year of mercy comes and goes and still no deal, nobody will remember this thread anyways.
:confused1: That's usually what you say when you don't believe it's ever really going to happen, but somehow I don't think that's what you're thinking.
In this case, this is news of "the next step". Matthew bumped the thread where someone wrote to him about Bp Fellay having a proposal in hand. If Bp Fellay didn't intend to act on that proposal, he wouldn't be discussing it with the priors now. We're still within the same course of events.
I suspect this information is spreading now due to the priests' meeting, but that's just my guess.
-
The information about Bp Fellay meeting with the priors to say the recognition is imminent, there being no real dissent, and that the priests received that same information this past week all came from a Resistance priest.
He said there would be something all priests would be required to sign.
Fr. David Hewko won't sign it.
.
-
.
I just wanted to say, it's so nice to see your colorful posts again, Incredulous!
Each priest -- SSPX as well as independent "Friends of the Society" -- will be able to participate in the "deal", by signing a certain Profession of Faith.
[/color]
This is good.
Then the battle-lines of the xSPX split will become more clear, as in the French Revolution.
(http://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/bajaage/5b68603b0fc5abeef0e95699fb9d4553/l22-660269.jpg)
You will have the modern day form of the non-juring SSPX priest who refuses to sign the "profession of newChurch faith".
(http://de.catholicnewsagency.com/img/cache/810/schmidberger_fellay_1450348737.jpg)
You have to hand it to old Schmidbergy.
Sly as a masonic fox, he promoted "prelature", the same ruse used by Opus judei.
-
The information about Bp Fellay meeting with the priors to say the recognition is imminent, there being no real dissent, and that the priests received that same information this past week all came from a Resistance priest.
He said there would be something all priests would be required to sign.
Fr. David Hewko won't sign it.
.
Of course "all priests" should be taken to mean "all priests who are still part of the SSPX". That much should be obvious, and goes without saying.
-
The information about Bp Fellay meeting with the priors to say the recognition is imminent, there being no real dissent, and that the priests received that same information this past week all came from a Resistance priest.
He said there would be something all priests would be required to sign.
Fr. David Hewko won't sign it.
.
Of course "all priests" should be taken to mean "all priests who are still part of the SSPX". That much should be obvious, and goes without saying.
... as well as those who wish to continue working with the SSPX.
-
The information about Bp Fellay meeting with the priors to say the recognition is imminent, there being no real dissent, and that the priests received that same information this past week all came from a Resistance priest.
He said there would be something all priests would be required to sign.
Fr. David Hewko won't sign it.
Of course "all priests" should be taken to mean "all priests who are still part of the SSPX". That much should be obvious, and goes without saying.
... as well as those who wish to continue working with the SSPX.
Yes.
What I was thinking is that Fr. Hewko has not been expelled. When he is asked why that is, he has no answer. That seems to be very interesting to me. Just sayin'.
-
This isn't the first time something was posted here as coming from an anonymous priest about the same spill of the impending deal. These posts are actually starting to get old. They remind of those guys who declare the end of the world and give a specific date,then it doesn't happen, so they try for another round. If the year of mercy comes and goes and still no deal, nobody will remember this thread anyways.
:confused1: That's usually what you say when you don't believe it's ever really going to happen, but somehow I don't think that's what you're thinking.
In this case, this is news of "the next step". Matthew bumped the thread where someone wrote to him about Bp Fellay having a proposal in hand. If Bp Fellay didn't intend to act on that proposal, he wouldn't be discussing it with the priors now. We're still within the same course of events.
I suspect this information is spreading now due to the priests' meeting, but that's just my guess.
What I mean is that I believe it will happen, just like I believe in the end of the world (Last Judgement), but the posts about it have been wrong several times.
-
Ah, an opportunity arises here. I can remember Traditio saying long ago that the Society would have to change its name. Who will jump in among the resistance to capture the SSPX name? No doubt Menzingen's lawyers will try and bury it.
But I do not think it wrong in the absence of firm evidence to detect and respond to winds of change. We have senses which awaken our suspicions and allow us to prepare for these before being overwhelmed. Well, some of us have! There is to point in complaining after the event.
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
-
From what I did find out (and maybe this is old news here already), there was a deal offered last year, but it was rejected because of no guarantee that Bishop Fellay could not prohibit the New Mass being said. What is talked about here in this thread is news to me though, and I am not sure if maybe things were just talked about in theory still at the prior's and priest's meetings or if something solid in reality was in the works to happen in the near future.
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
If this rumor is true, the answer would be: "secrecy" which is +Fellay's modus operandi. ONLY priors and key people need to sign the 1989 "Profession of Faith" and "Oath of Fidelity" to the pope (The Non-negotiable Doctrinal Preamble) even in the Novus Ordo. The rest of the priests will just be told: "See, you don't have to sign anything, the pope accept us as we are..."
-
The Light of Heaven need show us the way now.
Let us be more fervent and pray the deal will not
destroy any more of the traditionalist faction !
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
If this rumor is true, the answer would be: "secrecy" which is +Fellay's modus operandi. ONLY priors and key people need to sign the 1989 "Profession of Faith" and "Oath of Fidelity" to the pope (The Non-negotiable Doctrinal Preamble) even in the Novus Ordo. The rest of the priests will just be told: "See, you don't have to sign anything, the pope accept us as we are..."
I think you are correct as usually only those to be consecrated as bishops or installed as priors need to sign the "Profession of Faith."
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
If this rumor is true, the answer would be: "secrecy" which is +Fellay's modus operandi. ONLY priors and key people need to sign the 1989 "Profession of Faith" and "Oath of Fidelity" to the pope (The Non-negotiable Doctrinal Preamble) even in the Novus Ordo. The rest of the priests will just be told: "See, you don't have to sign anything, the pope accept us as we are..."
They have always had a priors' meeting separate from the priests' meeting. Also priors may change annually (as with any assignment) and are not permanent fixtures.
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
If this rumor is true, the answer would be: "secrecy" which is +Fellay's modus operandi. ONLY priors and key people need to sign the 1989 "Profession of Faith" and "Oath of Fidelity" to the pope (The Non-negotiable Doctrinal Preamble) even in the Novus Ordo. The rest of the priests will just be told: "See, you don't have to sign anything, the pope accept us as we are..."
I think you are correct as usually only those to be consecrated as bishops or installed as priors need to sign the "Profession of Faith."
Not so ! Indeed every deacon, priest and bishop (and those to be promoted to the first and last) must make the profession of faith. Here's the relevant canon:
TITLE V.
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH (Can. 833)
Can. 833 The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See:
1/ in the presence of the president or his delegate, all those who attend with either a deliberative or consultative vote an ecuмenical or particular council, a synod of bishops, and a diocesan synod; the president, however, makes it in the presence of the council or synod;
2/ those promoted to the cardinalatial dignity, according to the statutes of the sacred college;
3/ in the presence of the one delegated by the Apostolic See, all those promoted to the episcopate as well as those who are equivalent to a diocesan bishop;
4/ in the presence of the college of consultors, the diocesan administrator;
5/ in the presence of the diocesan bishop or his delegate, vicars general, episcopal vicars, and judicial vicars;
6/ in the presence of the local ordinary or his delegate and at the beginning of their function, pastors, the rector of a seminary, and teachers of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the order of the diaconate;
7/ in the presence of the grand chancellor or, in his absence, in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, the rector of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university, when the rector’s function begins; in the presence of the rector if he is a priest or in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines pertaining to faith or morals, when they begin their function;
8/ Superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life, according to the norm of the constitutions.
Henceforth in order to receive ordination to the priesthood SSPX aspirants must make this profession before receiving the diaconate. The principle will most certainly be applied to all the other already ordained clergy who wish canonical recognition.
The Profession of Faith which is referenced above (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html)
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
If this rumor is true, the answer would be: "secrecy" which is +Fellay's modus operandi. ONLY priors and key people need to sign the 1989 "Profession of Faith" and "Oath of Fidelity" to the pope (The Non-negotiable Doctrinal Preamble) even in the Novus Ordo. The rest of the priests will just be told: "See, you don't have to sign anything, the pope accept us as we are..."
I think you are correct as usually only those to be consecrated as bishops or installed as priors need to sign the "Profession of Faith."
Not so ! Indeed every deacon, priest and bishop (and those to be promoted to the first and last) must make the profession of faith. Here's the relevant canon:
TITLE V.
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH (Can. 833)
Can. 833 The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See:
1/ in the presence of the president or his delegate, all those who attend with either a deliberative or consultative vote an ecuмenical or particular council, a synod of bishops, and a diocesan synod; the president, however, makes it in the presence of the council or synod;
2/ those promoted to the cardinalatial dignity, according to the statutes of the sacred college;
3/ in the presence of the one delegated by the Apostolic See, all those promoted to the episcopate as well as those who are equivalent to a diocesan bishop;
4/ in the presence of the college of consultors, the diocesan administrator;
5/ in the presence of the diocesan bishop or his delegate, vicars general, episcopal vicars, and judicial vicars;
6/ in the presence of the local ordinary or his delegate and at the beginning of their function, pastors, the rector of a seminary, and teachers of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the order of the diaconate;
7/ in the presence of the grand chancellor or, in his absence, in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, the rector of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university, when the rector’s function begins; in the presence of the rector if he is a priest or in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines pertaining to faith or morals, when they begin their function;
8/ Superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life, according to the norm of the constitutions.
Henceforth in order to receive ordination to the priesthood SSPX aspirants must make this profession before receiving the diaconate. The principle will most certainly be applied to all the other already ordained clergy who wish canonical recognition.
The Profession of Faith which is referenced above (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html)
Thank you. I reviewed the canon last night and was about to post it. I have a house full of grandchildren today.
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
If this rumor is true, the answer would be: "secrecy" which is +Fellay's modus operandi. ONLY priors and key people need to sign the 1989 "Profession of Faith" and "Oath of Fidelity" to the pope (The Non-negotiable Doctrinal Preamble) even in the Novus Ordo. The rest of the priests will just be told: "See, you don't have to sign anything, the pope accept us as we are..."
I think you are correct as usually only those to be consecrated as bishops or installed as priors need to sign the "Profession of Faith."
Not so ! Indeed every deacon, priest and bishop (and those to be promoted to the first and last) must make the profession of faith. Here's the relevant canon:
TITLE V.
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH (Can. 833)
Can. 833 The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See:
1/ in the presence of the president or his delegate, all those who attend with either a deliberative or consultative vote an ecuмenical or particular council, a synod of bishops, and a diocesan synod; the president, however, makes it in the presence of the council or synod;
2/ those promoted to the cardinalatial dignity, according to the statutes of the sacred college;
3/ in the presence of the one delegated by the Apostolic See, all those promoted to the episcopate as well as those who are equivalent to a diocesan bishop;
4/ in the presence of the college of consultors, the diocesan administrator;
5/ in the presence of the diocesan bishop or his delegate, vicars general, episcopal vicars, and judicial vicars;
6/ in the presence of the local ordinary or his delegate and at the beginning of their function, pastors, the rector of a seminary, and teachers of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the order of the diaconate;
7/ in the presence of the grand chancellor or, in his absence, in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, the rector of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university, when the rector’s function begins; in the presence of the rector if he is a priest or in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines pertaining to faith or morals, when they begin their function;
8/ Superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life, according to the norm of the constitutions.
Henceforth in order to receive ordination to the priesthood SSPX aspirants must make this profession before receiving the diaconate. The principle will most certainly be applied to all the other already ordained clergy who wish canonical recognition.
The Profession of Faith which is referenced above (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html)
Thank you. I reviewed the canon last night and was about to post it. I have a house full of grandchildren today.
Well if you have a house full of grandchildren that absolves you from commenting on a rumor [because you added the caveat "if true"], ascribing motives [secrecy], and providing incorrect information. All of which you typed in bold for clarity, naturally. How much more productive would discussion be if people discussed facts versus rumor-mongering and engaging in all sorts of presumption? So cavalier is the process of ѕυιcιdє of the soul.
-
Indeed every deacon, priest and bishop (and those to be promoted to the first and last) must make the profession of faith. Here's the relevant canon:
TITLE V.
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH (Can. 833)
Can. 833 The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See:
1/ in the presence of the president or his delegate, all those who attend with either a deliberative or consultative vote an ecuмenical or particular council, a synod of bishops, and a diocesan synod; the president, however, makes it in the presence of the council or synod;
2/ those promoted to the cardinalatial dignity, according to the statutes of the sacred college;
3/ in the presence of the one delegated by the Apostolic See, all those promoted to the episcopate as well as those who are equivalent to a diocesan bishop;
4/ in the presence of the college of consultors, the diocesan administrator;
5/ in the presence of the diocesan bishop or his delegate, vicars general, episcopal vicars, and judicial vicars;
6/ in the presence of the local ordinary or his delegate and at the beginning of their function, pastors, the rector of a seminary, and teachers of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the order of the diaconate;
7/ in the presence of the grand chancellor or, in his absence, in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, the rector of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university, when the rector’s function begins; in the presence of the rector if he is a priest or in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines pertaining to faith or morals, when they begin their function;
8/ Superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life, according to the norm of the constitutions.
Henceforth in order to receive ordination to the priesthood SSPX aspirants must make this profession before receiving the diaconate. The principle will most certainly be applied to all the other already ordained clergy who wish canonical recognition.
The Profession of Faith which is referenced above (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html)
Thank you for your clarification.
-
So are the "Resistance" folks hoping for a deal so they could just say that they were right all along (ala "I told you so.") or are they hoping that there's no deal ... for the good of souls? I have to say that I'm not sure and am actually more inclined to believe it's the former.
-
So are the "Resistance" folks hoping for a deal so they could just say that they were right all along (ala "I told you so.") or are they hoping that there's no deal ... for the good of souls? I have to say that I'm not sure and am actually more inclined to believe it's the former.
In a hypothetical world where the SSPX wasn't working towards a deal, I (and others in the Resistance) wouldn't be wrong, because we wouldn't have organized or found anything to oppose in the first place!
That's like saying "I see you called the police because someone was breaking in your house; it's a good thing they caught the man who was breaking in, or you would have been pranking the police and that's not cool." How stupid! I only called the police because there was someone breaking in to my home. I'm no juvenile prankster.
And coming back to the actual situation, I'm not a malcontent, troublemaker, or someone who has given up on his spiritual life. I wasn't "lucky" that I had justification, nor do I have to "hope" for justification for my actions. My actions (and those of everyone else in the Resistance) were virtuous in 2012 because they were reacting to the actual situation at the time, regardless of what happens with the SSPX in 2016 and beyond.
When you start talking hypotheticals, you change everything.
There is only one reality that matters: objective reality. The real world that we all live in, which God has foreseen and guided by His Providence. All the hypothetical parallel universes don't concern me at all, since they don't exist.
If the SSPX situation had been different, I would have been different. I guarantee you.
-
Seriously, Ladislaus, after everything that's happened in the SSPX how could there be "no deal". Like it was all just a misunderstanding?
Please.
All the expulsions (including 25% of the bishops consecrated by +ABL), all the propaganda ("against the rumors", "resistance to what", etc.), all the scheming, all the purges, all the rebranding, all the re-casting of their position vis-a-vis Conciliar Rome... and they will just forget about a deal with Rome?
At worst, the SSPX won't get their deal because Rome doesn't agree to the deal. But that would be no thanks to the SSPX -- because the SSPX still tried their utmost to get their practical deal with Rome, whatever the cost.
-
So are the "Resistance" folks hoping for a deal so they could just say that they were right all along (ala "I told you so.") or are they hoping that there's no deal ... for the good of souls? I have to say that I'm not sure and am actually more inclined to believe it's the former.
What Matthew said.
But also, no, no deal. If all of the rebranding efforts came to naught and the Resistance comes out of it looking like paranoid nuts -- but the SSPX righted itself and was firm again with no one else the wiser -- it would be a very good thing. God knows more than we do how close the SSPX has come to the precipice. He's the One we answer to, no one else.
-
Hypothetical aside, the reality of the moment is much more disturbing.
Since many of my friends are leaving the SSPX and are attending Novus Ordo (NO) and FSSP services, they are floundering. They know something is wrong and their conscience disturbs them, but they have been told to cease being so analytical, and to "let go, let God."
These friends will call me over the phone or ask me to have some coffee with them so that they can complain about their latest experience with the outrageous NO entrance processions, and how it is difficult to pray in that kind of circus environment. Then abruptly, they will cut short the conversation, tell me to forget what they had just said, confess their grief for gossiping about the Novus Ordo, and then try to change the subject to how strange the weather has been lately.
What I am noticing is that these ex-SSPXers tend to be very scrupulous lately as their new FSSP or Opus Dei confessors tell them not to rock the boat, but to accept with loving obedience all the changes that Pope Francis is proposing. However, my ex-SSPX friends know that something is wrong, but in their indecisiveness, they are no longer listening to Christ, but to modernists who have overtaken the Church. Since the SSPX is no longer a beacon of hope, the people have no one to guide them into a safe harbor.
In the end, it does not matter if the SSPX has signed an agreement with the Vatican or not, as the damage has already been done, and the flock has been left leaderless and confused.
-
So are the "Resistance" folks hoping for a deal so they could just say that they were right all along (ala "I told you so.") or are they hoping that there's no deal ... for the good of souls? I have to say that I'm not sure and am actually more inclined to believe it's the former.
Actually, at this point, I honestly think it would be better for many souls in the short-term that a deal be made. Allow me to explain... Right now, I would trust the general spiritual direction of an FSSP priest over that of an SSPX priest because they are honest about what they think and where they stand. This whole mess has shown far too many SSPX priests to be the sort who change their positions depending on the circuмstances and give spiritual advice based on what it does for their "team". Not having a priest whom you can really trust can be devastating to many people.
While a deal is very problematic in the long-term, "no deal" doesn't magically make all that has already happened simply disappear. It will take a long time for the SSPX to regain what it has lost.
On the other hand, a deal right now would eliminate the SSPX's ongoing need to find all sorts of muddy explanations for how they've "not changed" from ABL's days and yet the Resistance wishing to keep with ABL's direction is entirely different and "to be avoided".
-
An agreement is irrelevant. Those who still cling to the old church in any way will always be viewed with suspicion by the mainstream; they are not cut from the same cloth that rejoices in the reforming Council, that master interpreter of everything.
-
There's no doubt about it. A deal for the SSPX would be a devastation for Tradition. They are the largest group openly resisting Rome and there is enough to say that there are still plenty of priests resisting Rome. It would be a huge harm to souls. The first thing to go would be the old calendar. The only people going by the old feast days would be small groups of sedevacantist and the resistance. This small detail alone could have huge repercussions. For the sake of Tradition catholics are obliged to pray for the restoration of the Faith and the SSPX. To hope they make a deal is certainly a "told you so" attitude that is common in many chapels across the board...the crisis in the Church is a punishment, no doubt. Catholics have been working against charity with all intensity for the last 100 years.
I would be silly and naive to think that the labors of a deal have not been in progress.
-
Catholics have been working against charity with all intensity for the last 100 years.
What does this mean?
-
So are the "Resistance" folks hoping for a deal so they could just say that they were right all along (ala "I told you so.") or are they hoping that there's no deal ... for the good of souls? I have to say that I'm not sure and am actually more inclined to believe it's the former.
Actually, at this point, I honestly think it would be better for many souls in the short-term that a deal be made. Allow me to explain... Right now, I would trust the general spiritual direction of an FSSP priest over that of an SSPX priest because they are honest about what they think and where they stand. This whole mess has shown far too many SSPX priests to be the sort who change their positions depending on the circuмstances and give spiritual advice based on what it does for their "team". Not having a priest whom you can really trust can be devastating to many people.
While a deal is very problematic in the long-term, "no deal" doesn't magically make all that has already happened simply disappear. It will take a long time for the SSPX to regain what it has lost.
On the other hand, a deal right now would eliminate the SSPX's ongoing need to find all sorts of muddy explanations for how they've "not changed" from ABL's days and yet the Resistance wishing to keep with ABL's direction is entirely different and "to be avoided".
IMHO, the error in both the Resistance and the mainstream SSPX is to base their course of action on what one "thinks" or perhaps is "convinced" +ABL would do today, in the current pontificate, 25 years after his death. The SSPX bases its opinion on the discourses and actions of +ABL primarily in the 1980's where he was certainly critical of the Council and new orientation, but repeatedly met with the Popes and worked over several months to hammer out an accord with +Ratzinger, despite the Council and Assisi '86. The Resistance, on the other hand, focuses on his reflections in the last months of his life, post-Consecrations. The Sede's broke with him even earlier because they were sure he was on a path to a Roman accord. Most are basing their 'next' actions on what 'he' would do next, were he still alive. Anyone besides me see a problem with this? If he never lived, would we be clueless on how to be Catholic. Are there no other Saints to use for reference? His picture hangs our living room and I don't doubt for a minute that he was, throughout his life, sublimely Catholic. I think he would be embarrassed, if not angered, to see the cult that has sprung up around the aspect of his memory that measures how to proceed as a Catholic based on a prediction of how he would specifically proceed today.
He gave us one of the purest examples in modern times on how one must live to be Catholic, from Gabon to Econe. At the same time, he was human and his thoughts on how to deal with the Pope and the Vatican in the 1980's was far from consistent. He spoke frequently off the cuff and in interviews on the crisis, the Pope, and how to deal with it. He was consistently Catholic but his next moves were not always consistent with his last words or deeds.
The sooner both (all) "groups" learn to be Catholic without justifying it by "this is what +ABL would want us to be doing today in 2016 ... and I know his mind better than you because..." , the better off all will be. Amen.
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
If this rumor is true, the answer would be: "secrecy" which is +Fellay's modus operandi. ONLY priors and key people need to sign the 1989 "Profession of Faith" and "Oath of Fidelity" to the pope (The Non-negotiable Doctrinal Preamble) even in the Novus Ordo. The rest of the priests will just be told: "See, you don't have to sign anything, the pope accept us as we are..."
I think you are correct as usually only those to be consecrated as bishops or installed as priors need to sign the "Profession of Faith."
Not so ! Indeed every deacon, priest and bishop (and those to be promoted to the first and last) must make the profession of faith. Here's the relevant canon:
TITLE V.
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH (Can. 833)
Can. 833 The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See:
1/ in the presence of the president or his delegate, all those who attend with either a deliberative or consultative vote an ecuмenical or particular council, a synod of bishops, and a diocesan synod; the president, however, makes it in the presence of the council or synod;
2/ those promoted to the cardinalatial dignity, according to the statutes of the sacred college;
3/ in the presence of the one delegated by the Apostolic See, all those promoted to the episcopate as well as those who are equivalent to a diocesan bishop;
4/ in the presence of the college of consultors, the diocesan administrator;
5/ in the presence of the diocesan bishop or his delegate, vicars general, episcopal vicars, and judicial vicars;
6/ in the presence of the local ordinary or his delegate and at the beginning of their function, pastors, the rector of a seminary, and teachers of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the order of the diaconate;
7/ in the presence of the grand chancellor or, in his absence, in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, the rector of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university, when the rector’s function begins; in the presence of the rector if he is a priest or in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines pertaining to faith or morals, when they begin their function;
8/ Superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life, according to the norm of the constitutions.
Henceforth in order to receive ordination to the priesthood SSPX aspirants must make this profession before receiving the diaconate. The principle will most certainly be applied to all the other already ordained clergy who wish canonical recognition.
The Profession of Faith which is referenced above (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html)
Thank you. I reviewed the canon last night and was about to post it. I have a house full of grandchildren today.
Well if you have a house full of grandchildren that absolves you from commenting on a rumor [because you added the caveat "if true"], ascribing motives [secrecy], and providing incorrect information. All of which you typed in bold for clarity, naturally. How much more productive would discussion be if people discussed facts versus rumor-mongering and engaging in all sorts of presumption? So cavalier is the process of ѕυιcιdє of the soul.
I admit I was wrong on the canon. I should have reviewed it before. I didn't remember mention of priests but "those to be promoted to the order of the diaconate" should have covered that. I stand corrected on that point.
As far as the secrecy of +Fellay, it is a fact:
He "defended the faith" in his talks with Rome in secret. He will go in history as being the first bishop to defend the faith in secret.
He continued the talks with Rome in secret. In fact, he never stopped. The Romans revealed that fact.
He kept GREC secret from even bishops until the cat got out of the bag.
He kept the Doctrinal Preamble secret from SSPX members and demanded of +Williamson to keep the contents of this docuмent secret as one of the two conditions to attend the Albano Meeting on 10/2011.
April 2012, he accused the other three SSPX bishops of "lacking both in supernatural spirit and in realism" for not trusting him in his secret negotiations. He told them: "You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months - quite different for each of you - has been hard for us. :sad: It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding".
He also used secrecy with the religious orders affiliated to the SSPX and exposed by them as well as the letter from the 37 French priests as lying to them.
Is this enough?
PS: I didn't give the thumbs down. I can take correction.
-
+ABL is only brought up so much because we're in the religious organization he founded (SSPX) and obviously (since we chose the SSPX out of all the other competing organizations) we all consider that +ABL's actions ARE THE SELF-SAME as what all the various saints would do, if they were alive today and in his position. So +ABL nicely summarizes the prudence and faithfulness of what any saint would do today.
If we were ever forced to not mention him, we could easily extrapolate our guidance from other saints throughout history. But +ABL is just the most convenient and recent, plus he's the founder of the organization. If you don't like his prudence, go somewhere else! Nothing is stopping anyone.
So no, we're not worshipping +ABL. But he was the founder of our group. And recently +Fellay and his cabal have radically changed the direction of the group, and gone against the founder's wishes in countless ways. Hence our "resistance" to that course of action.
We're talking about a superior general heading a coup to totally transform a group (the SSPX) into something totally different (FSSP). Of course we're going to bring up the founder and his wishes!
-
+ABL is only brought up so much because we're in the religious organization he founded (SSPX) and obviously (since we chose the SSPX out of all the other competing organizations) we all consider that +ABL's actions ARE THE SELF-SAME as what all the various saints would do, if they were alive today and in his position. So +ABL nicely summarizes the prudence and faithfulness of what any saint would do today.
If we were ever forced to not mention him, we could easily extrapolate our guidance from other saints throughout history. But +ABL is just the most convenient and recent, plus he's the founder of the organization. If you don't like his prudence, go somewhere else! Nothing is stopping anyone.
So no, we're not worshipping +ABL. But he was the founder of our group. And recently +Fellay and his cabal have radically changed the direction of the group, and gone against the founder's wishes in countless ways. Hence our "resistance" to that course of action.
We're talking about a superior general heading a coup to totally transform a group (the SSPX) into something totally different (FSSP). Of course we're going to bring up the founder and his wishes!
My post wasn't about "bringing him up". It was about predicting what he specifically would do and proclaiming that the (only) "Catholic Way". Not defending the course of the SSPX at all - but considering a common error in both camps.
I.E:
SSPX - This is the course +ABL would be following...
RESISTANCE: - No, This is the course +ABL would be following..
SEDE's: This is the course +ABL would have followed if he lived long enough...
-
There's no doubt about it. A deal for the SSPX would be a devastation for Tradition. They are the largest group openly resisting Rome and there is enough to say that there are still plenty of priests resisting Rome. It would be a huge harm to souls. The first thing to go would be the old calendar. The only people going by the old feast days would be small groups of sedevacantist and the resistance. This small detail alone could have huge repercussions. For the sake of Tradition catholics are obliged to pray for the restoration of the Faith and the SSPX. To hope they make a deal is certainly a "told you so" attitude that is common in many chapels across the board...the crisis in the Church is a punishment, no doubt. Catholics have been working against charity with all intensity for the last 100 years.
I would be silly and naive to think that the labors of a deal have not been in progress.
Exactly, this Post-Vatican II New Calendar, which eliminated many feast days of Saints and changed others to new dates, is a modernistic masonic innovation. Not only did British Anglican Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ heavily influence this decision on the part of Rome in the 1960s, but also they encouraged the Ecuмenical Patriarch (EP) and Freemason Meletios Metaxakis to impose the New Calendar on Greece, Alexandria, and the U.S.A. in the 1920s. In the 1960s, the EP and Freemason Athenagoras worked with Paul VI to drop the 1054 A.D. anathemas and to change the Vatican's Liturgical Calendar.
In Britain, as long ago as 1928 Parliament passed the Easter Act which would have fixed Easter as the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April. The law has never been implemented because until now it has never been possible to get agreement from all the Churches.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/anglican.primates.agree.to.set.fixed.common.date.for.easter/76730.htm
The reason given by the Anglicans and the EPs was to promote one common Easter among all Christians, so that Christians could pray together. Therefore, this reason shows its modernistic ecuмenistic roots. Currently, the Anglicans, the current EP Bartholomew, and Pope Francis are advocating an early common date of Easter (Second or Third Sunday of March) which would wreck havoc with the Traditional Church Calendars observed by both the Traditional Catholics and Traditional Old Calendar Orthodox Christians.
“A Common Date for Easter?”
By Father Ronald Roberson, CSP
Last month, in his address to a group of priests in Rome from around the world, Pope Francis again raised the question of the date of Easter, which Orthodox and western Christians have usually celebrated on different dates for centuries. In fact, he said that the Catholic Church was “ready to renounce” its method of calculation of the date of Easter in order to reach an agreement with the Orthodox Church, so that all Christian churches can celebrate Easter on the same day. What’s going on here?
http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-common-date-for-easter.html
Can you imagine observing Lent and Holy Week while the New Common Easter Calendarists have already been celebrating Easter for two to three weeks? How will that affect those who still celebrate the TLM in local parishes? Yes, you can save big on the discounted chocolate Easter bunnies, but what about all those Easter Lilies on the altar, all the white altar linens, and the uncovered statues? The few Christians and Priests wearing purple and black clothing will stand out like sore thumbs among the white clad Easter-celebrating crowd.
If the SSPX does complete their treacherous deal with the Vatican, then they will have to deal with the common date of Easter which could be imposed within five to ten years from now. It should be obvious that all this drum beating to impose the Civil Calendar on all peoples is all a sham because many in the Anglican Church no longer believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
While any deal reached by the SSPX to join the Vatican is most certainly fraught with danger, the steady but slow progress toward modernism as seen in the SSPX new chapel constructions is causing confusion in the laity and one capitulation after another among the clergy. I know the process of brainwashing and ultimate capitulation as I went through that in Los Angeles in the early 1970s. The Vatican does not want any dissension; they demand obedience to their constantly changing modernist agenda.
-
..many in the Anglican Church no longer believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
... nor, apparently, Cdl Muller....
-
I know the process of brainwashing and ultimate capitulation as I went through that in Los Angeles in the early 1970s.
Maria Regina, are you referring to what we went through after Vatican II? How we were shamed into going along with what our Catholic sense told us what wrong by being hammered with "we must be obedient"?
-
I know the process of brainwashing and ultimate capitulation as I went through that in Los Angeles in the early 1970s.
Maria Regina, are you referring to what we went through after Vatican II? How we were shamed into going along with what our Catholic sense told us what wrong by being hammered with "we must be obedient"?
Yes, I am referring to all those Sunday days of recollection and weekend retreats hosted by the parishes. Those feel good retreats where we all patted each other on the back and praised the new Novus Ordo masses. Our consciences were silenced with the silence of the Saints used as examples of obedience. However, with the silencing of our consciences, more people started living in sin.
It was wicked.
Unfortunately, the SSPX laity and clergy will most likely be subjected to similar retreats to bring them into compliance. We must pray for them.
-
How will that (early Easter) affect those who still celebrate the TLM in local parishes?
The indult TLM will get a new calendar too, probably along with a new "hybrid" TLM-NO missal, which has been on the horizon for a while now.
The only positive of this is that the new hybrid mass won't be confused with the true TLM. I hate imposters!
-
+ABL is only brought up so much because we're in the religious organization he founded (SSPX) and obviously (since we chose the SSPX out of all the other competing organizations) we all consider that +ABL's actions ARE THE SELF-SAME as what all the various saints would do, if they were alive today and in his position. So +ABL nicely summarizes the prudence and faithfulness of what any saint would do today.
If we were ever forced to not mention him, we could easily extrapolate our guidance from other saints throughout history. But +ABL is just the most convenient and recent, plus he's the founder of the organization. If you don't like his prudence, go somewhere else! Nothing is stopping anyone.
So no, we're not worshipping +ABL. But he was the founder of our group. And recently +Fellay and his cabal have radically changed the direction of the group, and gone against the founder's wishes in countless ways. Hence our "resistance" to that course of action.
We're talking about a superior general heading a coup to totally transform a group (the SSPX) into something totally different (FSSP). Of course we're going to bring up the founder and his wishes!
My post wasn't about "bringing him up". It was about predicting what he specifically would do and proclaiming that the (only) "Catholic Way". Not defending the course of the SSPX at all - but considering a common error in both camps.
I.E:
SSPX - This is the course +ABL would be following...
RESISTANCE: - No, This is the course +ABL would be following..
SEDE's: This is the course +ABL would have followed if he lived long enough...
This point is lacking an important distinction: old SSPX vs new SSPX.
My point in referencing ABL was just a different way of expressing the idea that the Resistance is nothing more than the old SSPX. So, in your example above, the SSPX and Resistance lines should be one in the same.
However, once you introduce NewSSPX, then you have what you're showing above.
Only one of the three, however, gets to claim the position that brought the mega-SSPX to where it is today.
-
BJ5 is making a good point in that it's easy to misinterpret/misrepresent a dead person. Sorta like the 1984 saying, "he who controls the past controls the future; he who controls the present, controls the past." In other words, it's high time we moved on from +ABL, in the sense that he brought us as far as God wanted him to. We all need to become leaders of the Faith and think for ourselves. Our circuмstances are different than when +ABL was alive; not totally, but enough to warrant a different strategy to the problems of new rome.
-
Our circuмstances are different than when +ABL was alive; not totally, but enough to warrant a different strategy to the problems of new rome.
I agree in theory that our circuмstances aren't necessarily the same (1991 is not 2016), and I agree that we should do the right thing, but not necessarily "What Would Marcel Do?"
However, I'd like to know SPECIFICALLY what's wrong with just carrying on the SSPX organization the way it has been. What needs to be changed, practically speaking?
Sedes say it's time to become sedevacantist. Some agent provocateurs say it's time to strap on some ѕυιcιdє vests.
I say nothing needs to be changed. You can only convert people who want the truth, and who want to be converted. The old SSPX was meeting that need just fine. What, they weren't perfect? What human organization ever was?
-
BJ5 is making a good point in that it's easy to misinterpret/misrepresent a dead person. Sorta like the 1984 saying, "he who controls the past controls the future; he who controls the present, controls the past." In other words, it's high time we moved on from +ABL, in the sense that he brought us as far as God wanted him to. We all need to become leaders of the Faith and think for ourselves. Our circuмstances are different than when +ABL was alive; not totally, but enough to warrant a different strategy to the problems of new rome.
BJ5 is right but his analysis is not new. Hopefully, we have grown up and no longer need ABL's guiding hand; one that was not always towards the straight and narrow. Similarly, the SSPX may have once been a fortuitous rallying vehicle but throughout its history numerous Catholics have decided it was harmful and have bailed out.
The sectarianism of the Society was based on the notion of having an exclusive divine right to rule trads and its priests would prance around expecting the faithful to cleave to their messianic stance. Many of us were too long in the tooth to put up with this behaviour, especially from converts who had never known the old church .... and would never truly know her.
Imbuing ABL with divinity may still be a preoccupation of some in the resistance and they seem to view the Society with unwarranted nostalgia. As Pax Vobis says, they need to move on and recognise the faults that have brought it down. One is having no clear objective apart from raising men to the priesthood. (Well, other bodies do that, too). The question of whether the Church is still to be found in Rome has had a crippling effect and any agreement continues to have this underlying question at its core. Another fault is basing the fortunes of the Society on the whim of one man. It is perhaps a miracle that in 1988 it did not go the same way that Campos went subsequently. Right or wrong, we can now hardly blame Bp. Fellay for also exercising his right to negotiate with Rome. I never saw much future in an entity that was mired in so much doubt and uncertainty. Perhaps the Society provided its followers with a temporary respite while they as individuals came to terms with the full consequences of the reforms. If this is so, we cannot be surprised if they were finally to leave in many directions.
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
This became standard policy a few years ago (5-6) and it allowed "prior matters" to be discussed without underlings. It also lowered the volume of priests in Winona for special concerns. It is useful to go about it this way, though...
-
What needs to be changed (about the sspx), practically speaking?
Well, practically, it's going to change whether we want it to or not. And, really, it's already changed. But if we could go back 10, even 20 years ago, i'd have a lot to say about how the society would be better. But the past is the past. And it's easy to complain. But, I will list anyway.
Things I would change about the sspx today:
1) Compromising attitude about V2 and the new mass. This is pretty self explanatory but they need to call a 'spade and spade' and say that V2 is heretical and that the novus ordo is objectively wrong. Anything less than this opens the door to compromise and will eventually, and logically, lead down the slippery slope to chaos (which is what we are seeing now).
The sspx, officially, has hesitated to use the term "heresy" and "evil" because 1) they want to "keep the door open" with Rome and 2) they want to distance themselves from "sedes". But one can properly label new rome and still negotiate with them, for the main discussion is based on doctrine anyway. And secondly, you can call V2/new mass heretical and still avoid becoming a "sede". (they don't own the rights to these words!) But, this would cause "political" problems with Rome, so even though they use the excuse of sedevacantism, I believe the main reason they avoid calling the novus ordo evil is because of their obsession with Rome. And God will (it seems) give them what they have wanted all these years - communion with new-rome.
2) an over-reliance on +ABL and his thoughts. I think his writings have been manipulated to condone the current negotiations and the wishy-washy attitude towards the novus ordo. There's plenty of smart and holy priests out there; why not have an official "statement" of what you believe, that's set in stone, instead of constantly going back to what one person said?
3) consolidation of power/control of propery. Why does the sspx need to control the property to send a priest for mass? I can see that they want some stability and that makes sense, but on the other hand, if the parishoners and the priest have a falling out, and the parishoners still control the property, what has the sspx lost? The priest leaves, and next week goes to another chapel, of which there are plenty who would accept him.
4) having a bishop run the society. I think +ABL wanted a priest to run it, so that there would be checks/balances. Having a bishop run the group makes it too top heavy and easy for him to gain full control, as people would naturally give a bishop too much authority anyway. For better or worse, you have to run it like a corp, with checks/balances, since the natural hierarchy of the Church cannot ever be achieved.
5) Elitist attitude. This one is hard to fix but i would wish the sspx would be less antagonistic towards other groups and independents. Certainly, many of problems with other groups are not their fault but if they were less hardline on fringe issues (BOD, sedevecantism) and MORE hardline on important issues (V2, new mass), there might be more of a consensus/unification of all TLM'ers. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but it couldn't hurt to try and with their size/influence, you never know what kind of bridges could be mended across the TLM spectrum. Then, how powerful would "tradition" be? Amazingly so.
Certainly, God doesn't like divisions and fighting and the devil does, so it stands to reason that He would bless all of us with more unification if we were to act appropriately. The sspx bends over backwards to "dialogue" with Rome; why can't they do the same with the sedes or the "independent" priests. But this type of work needs leadership and +Fellay is only concerned with Rome, and growing the sspx, not with growing tradition. A lost opportunity...
-
BJ5 is making a good point in that it's easy to misinterpret/misrepresent a dead person. Sorta like the 1984 saying, "he who controls the past controls the future; he who controls the present, controls the past." In other words, it's high time we moved on from +ABL, in the sense that he brought us as far as God wanted him to. We all need to become leaders of the Faith and think for ourselves. Our circuмstances are different than when +ABL was alive; not totally, but enough to warrant a different strategy to the problems of new rome.
Bingo!
-
+ABL was clear as to why he formed this Society of priests (without vows) and that was to preserve the Mass and to form priests in that Mass that would then take it to the (diocese) of the world.
Now that the founder is gone and the official organization he founded has undertaken the direction they are taking, what is the obsession with nostalgically (as Wessex put it) clinging to the 'old' SSPX? Why not embrace the original objectives of its founder and just carry on what he intended to do as plain ol' Catholics? There are Traditional Bishops and Priests outside of the SSPX that can follow that agenda without having any 'club' to own a membership to except for the Catholic Church. Those priests who can't accept that they have been expelled from it have issues IMHO. It is not even a religious order .. it is a Frat ... literally! Get over it, use the Bishops and priests Our Lord provides, and do what +ABL set out to do in 1970 --- minus the 'club'.
-
BJ5 is making a good point in that it's easy to misinterpret/misrepresent a dead person. Sorta like the 1984 saying, "he who controls the past controls the future; he who controls the present, controls the past." In other words, it's high time we moved on from +ABL, in the sense that he brought us as far as God wanted him to. We all need to become leaders of the Faith and think for ourselves. Our circuмstances are different than when +ABL was alive; not totally, but enough to warrant a different strategy to the problems of new rome.
BJ5 is right but his analysis is not new. Hopefully, we have grown up and no longer need ABL's guiding hand; one that was not always towards the straight and narrow. Similarly, the SSPX may have once been a fortuitous rallying vehicle but throughout its history numerous Catholics have decided it was harmful and have bailed out.
The sectarianism of the Society was based on the notion of having an exclusive divine right to rule trads and its priests would prance around expecting the faithful to cleave to their messianic stance. Many of us were too long in the tooth to put up with this behaviour, especially from converts who had never known the old church .... and would never truly know her.
Imbuing ABL with divinity may still be a preoccupation of some in the resistance and they seem to view the Society with unwarranted nostalgia. As Pax Vobis says, they need to move on and recognise the faults that have brought it down. One is having no clear objective apart from raising men to the priesthood. (Well, other bodies do that, too). The question of whether the Church is still to be found in Rome has had a crippling effect and any agreement continues to have this underlying question at its core. Another fault is basing the fortunes of the Society on the whim of one man. It is perhaps a miracle that in 1988 it did not go the same way that Campos went subsequently. Right or wrong, we can now hardly blame Bp. Fellay for also exercising his right to negotiate with Rome. I never saw much future in an entity that was mired in so much doubt and uncertainty. Perhaps the Society provided its followers with a temporary respite while they as individuals came to terms with the full consequences of the reforms. If this is so, we cannot be surprised if they were finally to leave in many directions.
Very well said, Wessex, and very true, especially the second paragraph, and the fact that ABL has been elevated to absurd heights.
-
+ABL was clear as to why he formed this Society of priests (without vows) and that was to preserve the Mass and to form priests in that Mass that would then take it to the (diocese) of the world.
Now that the founder is gone and the official organization he founded has undertaken the direction they are taking, what is the obsession with nostalgically (as Wessex put it) clinging to the 'old' SSPX? Why not embrace the original objectives of its founder and just carry on what he intended to do as plain ol' Catholics? There are Traditional Bishops and Priests outside of the SSPX that can follow that agenda without having any 'club' to own a membership to except for the Catholic Church. Those priests who can't accept that they have been expelled from it have issues IMHO. It is not even a religious order .. it is a Frat ... literally! Get over it, use the Bishops and priests Our Lord provides, and do what +ABL set out to do in 1970 --- minus the 'club'.
That's exactly what Bishop Williamson is doing.
-
5) Elitist attitude. This one is hard to fix but i would wish the sspx would be less antagonistic towards other groups and independents. Certainly, many of problems with other groups are not their fault but if they were less hardline on fringe issues (BOD, sedevecantism) and MORE hardline on important issues (V2, new mass), there might be more of a consensus/unification of all TLM'ers.
From another thread and as a response to Matthew's question: "However, I'd like to know SPECIFICALLY what's wrong with just carrying on the SSPX organization the way it has been. What needs to be changed, practically speaking?"
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=39894&min=15&num=5
The great tragedy of the SSPX, and why +Fellay has no problem “going down to Rome,” is that they have a superficial understanding of the encyclical. They take from it a proper understanding regarding the philosophical and theological grounds of Modenism and the importance of scholasticism but, because they never looked to Pascendi as a guide as to what to know and what to do, they have never understood how it also condemns Neo-modernism as well. The SSPX are Neo-modernist in both their understanding of dogma and their understanding of the nature of our ecclesiastical traditions that they hold to be purely disciplinary, objects of merely "ecclesiastical faith," which is why they have had nothing in substance to say to Rome in the doctrinal discussions.
St. Pius X in Pascendi, directly before addressing “remedies,” closes the speculative portion of the encyclical saying, “(The Modernists) recognise that the three chief difficulties for them are scholastic philosophy, the authority of the fathers and tradition, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war.” The “protective armour” must cover all three areas to be effective but for +Fellay it covers only one. The “protective armour” also requires believing in immutability of Catholic dogma, the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, once declared by the “magisterium of the Church,” which corresponds to the attribute of infallibility which Jesus Christ endowed His Church, understood in its literal sense. St. Pius then adds the most important statement every made regarding the nature of our ecclesiastical traditions which is the third necessary element of the “protective armour”:
They exercise all their ingenuity in diminishing the force and falsifying the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight. But for Catholics the second Council of Nicea will always have the force of law, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavour by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church; and Catholics will hold for law, also, the profession of the fourth Council of Constantinople: We therefore profess to conserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV, and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church. (Emphasis his)
The only possible way that Pius IV, Blessed Pius IX and St. Pius X “ordered the insertion in the profession of faith” that we must “firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions” is because these are necessary attributes of the faith without which the faith cannot be known or communicated to others. A necessary attribute is one that cannot be lost without a change in substance. The same thing applies for Nicea II in the condemnation of iconoclasts as “heretics” who denied the faith by destroying the images by which it is known.
St. Pius closes Pascendi saying, “May Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, be with you by His power; and may the Immaculate Virgin, the destroyer of all heresies, be with you by her prayers and aid.” The Rosary and the immemorial Roman rite of Mass are the two most important ecclesiastical traditions we have. We must defend them in the same sense that St. Pius does by recognizing their divine authorship and condemning any novelty established in opposition to them.
The Blessed Virgin Mary should be invoked by her title, “Destroyer of all Heresies.”
-
Remember even the Elect ! will be deceived by the devils in our times !
-
I don't know about anybody else but for me, thinking for myself includes tuning into the wisdom and understanding of ABL. It's fine and dandy to say that we should look to other saints' examples but it's no accident that ABL's example is the one raised by God now, recently, for our generation, in the Crisis WE face. I would be suspicious of the wisdom of anyone who "thought for themselves" in the sense that it excluded trying to understand the insight he had on the Crisis. Even if he was inconsistent or changed in the end, understanding what made him waver back and forth and what brought about the change is important because we face the exact same questions. He was a leader in a time of few leaders, you can't blame the populace for being drawn to that leadership. It's why he was raised in the first place, it's Providence.
ABL is also still in the SSPX's recent history. Many people still alive today knew him or met him. So there is the additional matter of loyalty especially among the priests. If someone you knew, loved and respected put their blood, sweat and tears into something that you believed in enough to dedicate your life to, you would be hard-pressed to stand idly by while someone tore it down and changed it into something else, especially if the original version moved and fostered your Faith. And especially if those changing it didn't own their actions but tried to pass the second version off as the wishes of the founder. There are several layers of issues here.
Outside of Fr Pfeiffer's group (and sedes?) I don't know many SSPX or Resistance who think or say that they have the only Catholic way. If they say it, they will soon revise it when pressed because objectively they know it isn't true. But I do think there are good, better, best and bad, worse, worst ways. Considering God will vomit out the lukewarm, I'd say that a lively scuffle over what ways are good, better, best is ultimately good for the soul.
-
Even if (+ABL) was inconsistent or changed in the end, understanding what made him waver back and forth and what brought about the change is important ...He was a leader in a time of few leaders,
I don't want to minimize ABL's importance, but he was NOT the only leader and there weren't just a "few". That's the point; strength in numbers. There were a only few bishops, but many priests and many laity who fought V2, - and many who preached, wrote and advertised why V2 was wrong.
But, in general, the sspx has 'tunnel vision' and only listens to ABL, at the exclusion of all the rest. Because of this, now that ABL's message has been distorted/perverted, they will be too. The point about "thinking for youself" has to do with reading/following/studying as many different aspects of the truth, from all different sources, as you can. Then, if one of your sources 'flip flops' or 'weakens' (as ABL did momentarily) you won't 'flip flop' with them. You'll have a better foundation on which your Faith is based.
-
Even if (+ABL) was inconsistent or changed in the end, understanding what made him waver back and forth and what brought about the change is important ...He was a leader in a time of few leaders,
I don't want to minimize ABL's importance, but he was NOT the only leader and there weren't just a "few". That's the point; strength in numbers. There were a only few bishops, but many priests and many laity who fought V2, - and many who preached, wrote and advertised why V2 was wrong.
But, in general, the sspx has 'tunnel vision' and only listens to ABL, at the exclusion of all the rest. Because of this, now that ABL's message has been distorted/perverted, they will be too. The point about "thinking for youself" has to do with reading/following/studying as many different aspects of the truth, from all different sources, as you can. Then, if one of your sources 'flip flops' or 'weakens' (as ABL did momentarily) you won't 'flip flop' with them. You'll have a better foundation on which your Faith is based.
I think we are talking about different kinds of leaders. It's true that many priests and people are leaders in their communities, but I am talking about leaders in the Church. Public, known leaders with authority. If so many priests and faithful had to stand up to fight VII in little pockets it's precisely because there were few among the bishops. But just because the priests and faithful stood up within their communities it doesn't mean they weren't looking for leadership from higher up. I know it's considered the worst "weakness" these days but most of us are meant to be followers in the big picture. Who we follow and why is the big question. Most who chose to follow ABL and the (old) SSPX did so because they surveyed their options and decided this rationale and this approach to the Crisis makes the most sense. It rings true. Others chose the SSPX because it's closest to what they believe. Whether they lean more towards FSSP and are happy at the prospect of regularization or lean more sede and are threatening to go there more with every passing day, options are limited, so they went SSPX. Either way the SSPX has represented the largest group of traditional Catholics and having it compromise so publicly and supposedly under the banner of ABL will further scandalize and confuse too many people.
The explanation you give now of thinking for oneself makes a lot more sense than complaining that people are acting like frat boys and need to get over ABL. There is nothing wrong with desiring unity, especially among priests who have the same goals (or thought they did) so I don't know why the SSPX is being dismissed as a "club". It sounds resentful and doesn't help your claim of not wanting to minimize ABL. It not only minimizes him but the hundreds of priests the SSPX has produced and the labor it has done in the field.
-
BJ5 is making a good point in that it's easy to misinterpret/misrepresent a dead person. Sorta like the 1984 saying, "he who controls the past controls the future; he who controls the present, controls the past." In other words, it's high time we moved on from +ABL, in the sense that he brought us as far as God wanted him to. We all need to become leaders of the Faith and think for ourselves. Our circuмstances are different than when +ABL was alive; not totally, but enough to warrant a different strategy to the problems of new rome.
BJ5 is right but his analysis is not new. Hopefully, we have grown up and no longer need ABL's guiding hand; one that was not always towards the straight and narrow. Similarly, the SSPX may have once been a fortuitous rallying vehicle but throughout its history numerous Catholics have decided it was harmful and have bailed out.
The sectarianism of the Society was based on the notion of having an exclusive divine right to rule trads and its priests would prance around expecting the faithful to cleave to their messianic stance. Many of us were too long in the tooth to put up with this behaviour, especially from converts who had never known the old church .... and would never truly know her.
Imbuing ABL with divinity may still be a preoccupation of some in the resistance and they seem to view the Society with unwarranted nostalgia. As Pax Vobis says, they need to move on and recognise the faults that have brought it down. One is having no clear objective apart from raising men to the priesthood. (Well, other bodies do that, too). The question of whether the Church is still to be found in Rome has had a crippling effect and any agreement continues to have this underlying question at its core. Another fault is basing the fortunes of the Society on the whim of one man. It is perhaps a miracle that in 1988 it did not go the same way that Campos went subsequently. Right or wrong, we can now hardly blame Bp. Fellay for also exercising his right to negotiate with Rome. I never saw much future in an entity that was mired in so much doubt and uncertainty. Perhaps the Society provided its followers with a temporary respite while they as individuals came to terms with the full consequences of the reforms. If this is so, we cannot be surprised if they were finally to leave in many directions.
Very well said, Wessex, and very true, especially the second paragraph, and the fact that ABL has been elevated to absurd heights.
This question is not intended to be facetious, but have there been any miracles attributed to +ABL's spiritual intercession?
-
Matthew, why would there have been a priors' meeting in January when they could've just held a separate priors' meeting during the priests' meeting in February at Winona?
This became standard policy a few years ago (5-6) and it allowed "prior matters" to be discussed without underlings. It also lowered the volume of priests in Winona for special concerns. It is useful to go about it this way, though...
(http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/colorbox-big/public/fr-wegner-christmas-message460b.jpg)
Yes indeed!
The underlings are fed our bi-monthly "talking points" from Menzingn headquarters.
We've trained them to say "thank you" and eat it all up.
:ready-to-eat:
-
I don't know whether it is just me but I cringe when I see pictures of well-groomed over-confident priests sporting an attitude of invincibility. Maybe I am talking of a certain type; I am sure their mothers are so proud of them! Give me the rough manners of someone like Fr. Pfeiffer or Trevor Howard in one of his clerical roles.
-
I was looking for a sermon for the Third Sunday of Lent and this came up.
The relevant part starts around 46:15:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/KC439OEuDMk[/youtube]
I'm not sure who the priest is, but apparently he has a ticket for the train headed to Modernist Rome...
-
I was looking for a sermon for the Third Sunday of Lent and this came up.
The relevant part starts around 46:15:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/KC439OEuDMk[/youtube]
I'm not sure who the priest is, but apparently he has a ticket for the train headed to Modernist Rome...
That's most likely the prior, Fr. Vernoy.
-
I listened to a good part and thought I was listening to +Fellay. Fr. Vernoy speaks of Modernists as if they were Catholics and vice versa. He also says very emphatically : "If the pope wants you! you cannot say no!...It's not Catholic". (What about ABL?) Obviously he did not read the interview with Msgr. Pozzo on the same day as the DICI announcement. He mentions Truth but the only "truth" he seems to believe anymore is what comes directly out of the mouth of his S.G. I was reminded of the quote below.
My daughter, I see more Pharisees among Christians than there were around Pilate.
St. Margaret of Cortona
-
Oh no -- did anyone download that Youtube video? Now the neo-SSPX is in damage control mode and took down the video.
I must admit, I failed to download the video (evidence) myself.
Various agents of the neo-SSPX must have CathInfo.com as their start page. Of this I have no doubt.
When we find evidence of this kind, we NEED TO DOWNLOAD A LOCAL COPY so they can't "disappear" the evidence.
If you have Linux, there is a great script called youtube-dl which is easy to use. I just type youtube-dl <youtube URL> and hit enter, and it downloads the whole thing to an MP4 file. Maybe there is a Windows version, I don't know.
Then when we quote these things to some people, they innocently ask us, "Can you show me any evidence or proof" and then we have to say, "Um...errr...it was there, honest!"
-
Oh no -- did anyone download that Youtube video? Now the neo-SSPX is in damage control mode and took down the video.
I must admit, I failed to download the video (evidence) myself.
Various agents of the neo-SSPX must have CathInfo.com as their start page. Of this I have no doubt.
When we find evidence of this kind, we NEED TO DOWNLOAD A LOCAL COPY so they can't "disappear" the evidence.
If you have Linux, there is a great script called youtube-dl which is easy to use. I just type youtube-dl <youtube URL> and hit enter, and it downloads the whole thing to an MP4 file. Maybe there is a Windows version, I don't know.
Then when we quote these things to some people, they innocently ask us, "Can you show me any evidence or proof" and then we have to say, "Um...errr...it was there, honest!"
HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgmLgw-3b8E&feature=youtu.be
-
Well done, Cristera...
-
I forgot to mention Fr. Vernoy says that "the pope is not asking anything of them". On Feb. 26, Msgr Pozzo said in an interview with Zenit:
February 25, 2016
Excellence, in 2009 Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication to the Society of St. Pius X. This means that now I'm back into communion with Rome?
With the remission of the excommunication of Benedict XVI to the bishops of the SSPX censorship (2009), they are no longer subject to this serious of ecclesiastical penalties. With this measure, however, the SSPX is still in an irregular position, because it has not received canonical recognition by the Holy See. As long as the Society has no canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise in a legitimate way the ministry and the celebration of the sacraments. According to the formula endeavored by the then Cardinal Bergoglio in Buenos Aires and confirmed by Pope Francis to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the members of the SSPX are Catholics in the path toward full communion with the Holy See. This full communion will come when you will be the canonical recognition of the Fraternity.
What steps have been taken by the Holy See in these seven years to promote the rapprochement of the Society of St. Pius X?
Following the lifting of the excommunication in 2009, they were initiated a series of meetings between doctrinal experts appointed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is closely linked to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei after the Motu proprio of Benedict XVI unitatem Ecclesiae (2009 ), and experts of the SSPX to discuss and exchange views on major doctrinal issues underlying the dispute with the Holy See: the relationship between Tradition and Magisterium, the question of ecuмenism, interreligious dialogue, religious freedom and of the liturgical reform, in the context of teaching of Vatican Council II.
This comparison, which lasted about two years, made it possible to clarify the respective theological positions on the subject, to highlight the convergence and divergence points.
In subsequent years the doctrinal talks continued with some targeted initiatives deepening and clarification of the issues under discussion. At the same time contacts between the superiors of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and the Higher and other members of the SSPX they have favored the development of a climate of trust and mutual respect, which must be the basis of a process of rapprochement. Must overcome mistrust and stiffeners that are understandable after so many years of fracture, but can be gradually dissipated if the mutual attitude changes and if the differences are not considered to be insurmountable walls, but as discussion points that deserve to be explored and developed into a useful clarification to the whole Church. We are now at a stage that I believe constructive and oriented to achieve the desired reconciliation. The gesture of Pope Francis to grant to the faithful Catholics of receiving validly and lawfully the sacrament of reconciliation and anointing of the sick by the bishops and priests of the SSPX during the Holy Year of Mercy, is clearly the sign of the will of the Holy Father favor the path towards full and stable canonical recognition.
What are the obstacles that still stand in the way to the final reconciliation?
I would distinguish two levels. The proper doctrinal level, which concerns some differences about individual topics proposed by the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium, relating to ecuмenism, the relationship between Christianity and the world religions, religious freedom, especially in the relationship between Church and State , some aspects of liturgical reform. The level of mental and psychological attitude, which is to move from a position of polemical and antagonistic confrontation, to a position of listening and mutual respect, esteem and confidence, as it should be between members of the same Body of Christ, which is the church. We need to work on both of these levels. I think the rapprochement undertaken has given some fruit, especially for this change in attitude by both parties and it is worth pursuing that.
Even on the issue of the Second Vatican Council, I think that the SSPX must reflect on the distinction, which is fundamental and absolutely nullifying my opinion, between the authentic mens of Vatican II, his intentio docendi, as shown by the official Acts of the Council, and that I would call the "paraconcilio", ie the set of theological and practical attitudes guidelines, which accompanied the course of the Council itself, then pretending to cover herself with her name, and that the public, thanks to the influence of the mass media, overlapped often the true thought of the Council. Often in discussions with the SSPX, the opposition is not the Council, but the "spirit of the Council", which makes use of some expressions or formulations of the conciliar docuмents to open the way for interpretations and positions that are far away and sometimes exploit the true thought reconcile.
Also as regards the criticism Lefebvrian on religious freedom, to the bottom of the discussion seems to me that the SSPX position is characterized by the defense of traditional Catholic doctrine against the agnostic secularism of the State and against secularism and ideological relativism and not against the right of person not to be constricted or obstructed by the State in the exercise of the profession of religious faith. However, these are issues that will be a topic for discussion and clarification even after the full reconciliation. What appears crucial is to find a full convergence on what is required to be in full communion with the Apostolic See, namely the integrity of the Catholic Creed, the constraint of the sacraments and the acceptance of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium, which is not above the Word of God written and transmitted, but serves it, is the authentic interpreter also of previous texts of the Magisterium, including those of the Second Vatican Council, in the light of the perennial Tradition, which develops in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, not with a novelty contrary (which would deny the Catholic dogma), but with a better understanding of the deposit of faith, in the same doctrine, the same sense and in the same judgment (in eodem scilicet dogmate , et eademque sententia eodem sensu, cf. First Vatican Council, Const. Dogmatic Constitution. Dei Filius, 4). I believe that on these points converge with the SSPX is not only possible, but necessary. This does not affect the ability and the legitimacy to discuss and explore other particular issues, I mentioned above, that do not concern matters of faith, but rather pastoral guidelines and prudential judgments, and not dogmatic, on which you can also have different points of view. So this is not to ignore or domesticate the differences on some aspects of the pastoral life of the Church, but it is aware that the Second Vatican Council there are doctrinal docuмents, intending to revive already defined truth of faith or truth of Catholic doctrine (eg . Const. Dogmatic Constitution. Dei Verbum Constitution. Dogmatic Constitution. Lumen Gentium), and there are docuмents that intend to suggest directions or guidelines for practical action, that is, for the pastoral life as an application of the doctrine (Decl. Nostra Aetate, ibid Decree , Declaration. Dignitatis humanae). The adherence to the teachings of the Magisterium varies according to the degree of authority and truth of their own category of magisterial docuмents. I do not know that the SSPX has denied the doctrines of faith or truth of Catholic doctrine taught by the Magisterium. The criticisms concern instead statements or claims regarding the renewed pastoral care and ecuмenical relations with other religions, and some issues prudential order in the Church's relationship and society, Church and State. On liturgical reform, I will only mention a statement that Msgr. Lefebvre wrote to Pope John Paul II in a letter dated 8 March 1980: "As the Mass of the Novus Ordo, despite all the reservations that you have to do about it, I do not I never claimed that it is invalid or heretical. " Therefore reserves the rite of Novus Ordo, which are obviously not to be underestimated, they do not refer either to the validity of the celebration of the sacrament nor the straight Catholic faith. It will therefore be appropriate to continue the discussion and clarification of these reserves.
On the occasion of Mercy it arrived a conciliatory gesture by Pope Francis: the Catholic faithful can receive the sacrament of reconciliation even by priests belonging to the fraternity. What does this measure? He believes that this gesture can actually re-open a dialogue that, for some time, seemed to have stalled?
As I said above, the dialogue with the SSPX has never stranded. It is rather decided that it would continue in a less official and formal form, to give space and time to a maturing of relations in line attitude of trust and mutual understanding to foster a climate more suitable relationships where also place the time of theological and doctrinal discussion. The Holy Father encouraged the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei from the start of his pontificate to pursue this style of reporting and comparison with the SSPX. In this context, the soothing and magnanimous gesture of Pope Francis in the Year of Mercy circuмstance has undoubtedly helped to calm further the state of relations with the Society, showing that the Holy See has the rapprochement and reconciliation at heart, who will also have a canonical covering. I hope and wish that the same feeling and the same will also be shared by the SSPX.
https://it.zenit.org/articles/a-che-punto-e-il-dialogo-con-i-lefebvriani/
What would be the purpose of this interview if the SSPX is "accepted as is"? If Francis is accepting the SSPX "as is", they have made enough compromises. The rest will come later.
-
The sspx "spin zone" continues in this video. Wow, such propaganda. Here's my summary/comments:
1. Probable lie #1 (time will tell): The Pope will accept us "as we are".
Correction: "As we are" implies no changes whatsoever. Highly doubtful.
2. Lie #2. If you are in tradition it's because of God, not just you. (The implication is that God's grace forces change).
Correction: Well, yes and no. God gave you the grace to see the truth but He forces no one to do anything, so if you are in tradition, you responded to grace, which was a personal action.
3. Lie #3. An agreement with Rome is directly from God. The priest says it is so because "special things are happening" and "God is there".
Correction: Assuming you believe that God "forced" you into tradition, then you would also believe that the sspx is "forced" into accepting Rome. I don't think that's how Divine Providence works.
Priest continues: "If you have no confidence, you have nothing to do here. It's because you don't believe in the grace of God. ...We have to keep prudence, but when the grace of God is there, the finger of God is there, you just have to acknowledge it so."
Correction: Who decides what God's will is? First, it must be based on truths, the Faith and facts, not an emotional understanding of "confidence" in God.
4. Lie #4. If the Pope wants you, you cannot say 'no'. To say 'no' is not Catholic.
Correction: It depends what the Pope wants. The Pope has wanted a lot of things over the past 50 years; does that mean the society hasn't been catholic this whole time? Who decides what requests from the pope are legitimate or not? This statement is way too general.
5. Lie #5. The Pope has authority and if you deny it, formally, you place yourself in the state of mortal sin.
Correction: Again, who decides when/if one has "denied" the authority of the pope? Hasn't the society done so for the past 50 years? Are they, then, in a state of mortal sin? Such talk is fear-mongering!
-
To download a YouTube video using Windows do this:
Type the letters "ss" in front of "youtube" in the URL bar of the video you want to download.
Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSkYr-AnZa
you would type "ss" in front of "youtube" in the bar and it would read:
https://www.ssyoutube.com/watch?v=pSkYr-AnZa
I made it red so you could see where to type it.
Then hit enter and you will be taken to a download site where you select your playback speed and click "Download". I've used it for years and have never had any malware download.
Give it a shot. It works for me.
-
If the aforementioned method isn't compatible with one's operating system, you can always use http://mp3fiber.com Simply select .mp4 format to save the video itself.
-
Downloading the video now.
-
I made sure to download the original video before posting here. For those interested, it's a 450MB file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jw2mgz3tqkukz1f/Third%20Sunday%20of%20Lent%20Live%20at%209%20am%20Eastern.mp4?dl=0
-
Thanks everyone for pushing back against neo-SSPX propaganda and censorship and helping fight the information war.
You guys are awesome!
At this point, it might occur to many of you why the neo-SSPX is so anxious to keep its members off the "social media" and "Internet" since it is obviously such a powerful force which they can't control. Just think of how connected we are and how easy it is to share/analyze/collate information, communicate, and get a lot of work done.
A priest inside the SSPX said that according to their firewall software, CathInfo.com is the 2nd most visited site at the various priories and rectories. Rorate Caeli is the 1st.
I would believe it. Just look at how fast that video went down after we started talking about it here.
-
A priest inside the SSPX said that according to their firewall software, CathInfo.com is the 2nd most visited site at the various priories and rectories. Rorate Caeli is the 1st.
That's a but disheartening if true. I have been hoping there are many priests faithful to the original SSPX principles who are biding their time or maybe not completely aware of what's going on since they are so busy in the field. But if they're all up here, they know what's going on and... simply aren't taking action? Or are going with the changes? If they are all up here why aren't more speaking out?
-
A priest inside the SSPX said that according to their firewall software, CathInfo.com is the 2nd most visited site at the various priories and rectories. Rorate Caeli is the 1st.
That's a but disheartening if true. I have been hoping there are many priests faithful to the original SSPX principles who are biding their time or maybe not completely aware of what's going on since they are so busy in the field. But if they're all up here, they know what's going on and... simply aren't taking action? Or are going with the changes? If they are all up here why aren't more speaking out?
Just because they know there's something new going on in the SSPX doesn't mean they have a firm plan about what to do and where to go. Many of them could be waiting for the Resistance to get established -- at least enough so that there are some locations where priests can stay if they left the SSPX.
Remember, priests aren't angels. They have bodies as well as souls. They need a place to sleep, food to eat, and since America is very spread out and designed around the automobile, they also need a vehicle to get around, just like the rest of us. And when you have a car, you are required by law to have car insurance. And speaking of insurance, everyone needs some kind of health insurance. A person can't "self-insure", not in this day and age where a single trip to the hospital can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
A few priests are adventurous enough to live on the wild side: sleep in their car, go without health insurance, move back to the family ranch, etc. but not all priests have the ability to do this and/or the willingness to do this. Nor should they automatically be expected to.
Just think of 1850. How many priests were missionaries working among the indians, vs. the number of priests working in the "civilized world"? A missionary vocation has always been considered to be something over and above a regular priestly vocation.
-
I understand those are reasons not to leave but are they reasons not to speak up? They don't have to make it personal against their superiors but if there were enough priests still strongly preaching the principles of no compromise, would +Fellay expel them all? If priests were still warning against the intentions of Rome, even in taking them "as is", would +Fellay expel them all?
The priests leaving in little dribs and drabs of two or three makes it easy on the Neo-SSPX. That's easily swept under the rug. Priests such as Fr. Doran leaving quietly makes it easy too. Is he just going to disappear into the night and leave the faithful to Rome? That's a bit of a rhetorical question, I know they need time to figure things out and I don't expect all priests to have to answer to US personally, but all the silence and hushed tones everywhere makes me uneasy.
Something about CI being that popular almost leaves a pit in my stomach that this is it. What we see is what we get and there are no others seeing through the charade and biding their time. I don't mean to be a doomsday'er, I am just realizing things may not be as hopeful as I had originally imagined. Not in the way I had originally imagined anyway. I trust in God but my thoughts of how humans would come through might be failing a bit. Perhaps that's not such a bad thing in the long run.
-
Oh no -- did anyone download that Youtube video? Now the neo-SSPX is in damage control mode and took down the video.
I must admit, I failed to download the video (evidence) myself.
Various agents of the neo-SSPX must have CathInfo.com as their start page. Of this I have no doubt.
When we find evidence of this kind, we NEED TO DOWNLOAD A LOCAL COPY so they can't "disappear" the evidence.
If you have Linux, there is a great script called youtube-dl which is easy to use. I just type youtube-dl <youtube URL> and hit enter, and it downloads the whole thing to an MP4 file. Maybe there is a Windows version, I don't know.
Then when we quote these things to some people, they innocently ask us, "Can you show me any evidence or proof" and then we have to say, "Um...errr...it was there, honest!"
HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgmLgw-3b8E&feature=youtu.be
Just listened to this most incredible spin job.
Concerning the impending xSPX reconciliation with Rome, Father tells us:
1. "God is there" (in this deal).
2. It's the result of "Miracles".
3. "Have confidence" (you dumb sheeples)
4. " When the pope wants you, you cannot say no".
5. Rebel against our authority on this deal dear faithful, and "you are guilty of mortal sin"
A Catholic priests morphs into a BS "salesman". :facepalm:
-
5. Rebel against our authority on this deal dear faithful, and "you are guilty of mortal sin"
I noticed that point most of all. Everything else I can bring myself to chalk up to him having a different opinion on the best way to go about the Crisis. Using "mortal sin" to scare the faithful out of any critical thought brings it to another level. A much less innocent level of manipulation and false obedience.
-
On Quadragesima Sunday I heard a sermon with these points:
1. We need to be under the Pope
2. God won't let the SSPX fall
3. You need to trust the priest
At the time I thought it was just the personal opinions of the priest who gave that sermon. Now I know it was talking points that came down from on high.
The question is this: Will there be other signs of the unilateral agreement or is this the only one?
-
5. Rebel against our authority on this deal dear faithful, and "you are guilty of mortal sin"
I noticed that point most of all. Everything else I can bring myself to chalk up to him having a different opinion on the best way to go about the Crisis. Using "mortal sin" to scare the faithful out of any critical thought brings it to another level. A much less innocent level of manipulation and false obedience.
So you go to Hell if you don't obey any wish of the Pope, on whatever level? This makes Catholics into automatons and zombies.
Have other people noticed bad theology surfacing among priests of the NSSPX? Is their seminary training that poor? Or what?
Corruptio optimi pessima.
-
Obviously I'm against any deal with apostate Vatican, but I wonder how the unilateral recognition of the SSPX by the Pope (which Francis can do any time, whether Menzingen wants it or not) change the situation? What would it change in practice? Would SSPX be suddenly bound to obey the diocesian bishops, accept Vatican II or make some sort of changes in theor organization? If it is unilateral recognition (not involvingany deal or statement on the part of the SSPX) than I think not. Suppose Francis unilaterally recognizes Resistance tomorrow - would that change anything in practice?
-
Obviously I'm against any deal with apostate Vatican, but I wonder how the unilateral recognition of the SSPX by the Pope (which Francis can do any time, whether Menzingen wants it or not) change the situation? What would it change in practice? Would SSPX be suddenly bound to obey the diocesian bishops, accept Vatican II or make some sort of changes in theor organization? If it is unilateral recognition (not involvingany deal or statement on the part of the SSPX) than I think not. Suppose Francis unilaterally recognizes Resistance tomorrow - would that change anything in practice?
Answer: First of all, we know that the Neo-SSPX wants a recognition. It started in 1997 with the GREC. In the declaration of the 3 XSPX bishops of June 27, 2013, they even allude to that possibility of unilateral recognition from the Pope. The changes in practice? The XSPX would now become part of the Apostate Rome official structure, and therefore under its rule, even if not asked straight away to accept the errors and reforms. They will now have to follow the new code of Canon Law, for instance. They will also have to pay diocesan taxes, as well as St. Peter's Penny. You can guess how that money will be used by the dioceses and the Vatican. They will also have to participate to diverse undertakings, such as Synods, World Youth Days, Canonizations ceremonies, diocesan promotional activities, welcoming of "Refugee families", and so forth and so on. They will also need to display Vatican and diocesan posters for the promotion of diverse causes (ex: Novus Ordo seminaries). They will also feel uncomfortable in condemning what needs to be condemned (which they already feel). As for the Resistance, if the Pope was to recognize them unilateraly, they would have to publicly refuse such a recognition, so as not to give the least appearance that they agree with the bad things the Vatican, the Bishops, and the Pope are doing and saying.
-
Obviously I'm against any deal with apostate Vatican, but I wonder how the unilateral recognition of the SSPX by the Pope (which Francis can do any time, whether Menzingen wants it or not) change the situation? What would it change in practice? Would SSPX be suddenly bound to obey the diocesian bishops, accept Vatican II or make some sort of changes in theor organization? If it is unilateral recognition (not involvingany deal or statement on the part of the SSPX) than I think not. Suppose Francis unilaterally recognizes Resistance tomorrow - would that change anything in practice?
What a circus farce.
They've been negotiating for decades and suddenly, for no apparent reason, Rome gives up and offers a unilateral deal?
The xSPX elders view their followers as so dumb, they can't even figure out a "quid pro quo" exists.
Eventually, details of the full deal will leak out.
-
Obviously I'm against any deal with apostate Vatican, but I wonder how the unilateral recognition of the SSPX by the Pope (which Francis can do any time, whether Menzingen wants it or not) change the situation? What would it change in practice? Would SSPX be suddenly bound to obey the diocesian bishops, accept Vatican II or make some sort of changes in theor organization? If it is unilateral recognition (not involvingany deal or statement on the part of the SSPX) than I think not. Suppose Francis unilaterally recognizes Resistance tomorrow - would that change anything in practice?
Answer: First of all, we know that the Neo-SSPX wants a recognition. It started in 1997 with the GREC. In the declaration of the 3 XSPX bishops of June 27, 2013, they even allude to that possibility of unilateral recognition from the Pope. The changes in practice? The XSPX would now become part of the Apostate Rome official structure, and therefore under its rule, even if not asked straight away to accept the errors and reforms. They will now have to follow the new code of Canon Law, for instance. They will also have to pay diocesan taxes, as well as St. Peter's Penny. You can guess how that money will be used by the dioceses and the Vatican. They will also have to participate to diverse undertakings, such as Synods, World Youth Days, Canonizations ceremonies, diocesan promotional activities, welcoming of "Refugee families", and so forth and so on. They will also need to display Vatican and diocesan posters for the promotion of diverse causes (ex: Novus Ordo seminaries). They will also feel uncomfortable in condemning what needs to be condemned (which they already feel). As for the Resistance, if the Pope was to recognize them unilateraly, they would have to publicly refuse such a recognition, so as not to give the least appearance that they agree with the bad things the Vatican, the Bishops, and the Pope are doing and saying.
Maybe not Patricius?
Consider the unique governance of The Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus juDei
Governance
Main article: Personal prelature
In Pope John Paul II's 1982 decree known as the Apostolic constitution Ut Sit, Opus Dei was established as a personal prelature, a new official structure of the Catholic Church, similar to a diocese in that it contains lay people and secular priests who are led by a bishop. However, whereas a bishop normally has a territory or diocese, the prelate of Opus Dei is pastor to the members and priests of Opus Dei worldwide, no matter what diocese they are in. To date, Opus Dei is the only personal prelature in existence. In addition to being governed by Ut Sit and by the Catholic Church's general law, Opus Dei is governed by the Church's Particular Law concerning Opus Dei, otherwise known as Opus Dei's statutes. This specifies the objectives and workings of the prelature. The prelature is under the Congregation for Bishops.[2][74]
The head of the Opus Dei prelature is known as the Prelate.[2] The Prelate is the primary governing authority and is assisted by two councils—the General Council (made up of men) and the Central Advisory (made up of women).[75] The Prelate holds his position for life. The current prelate of Opus Dei is Javier Echevarría Rodríguez, who became the second Prelate of Opus Dei in 1994.[76] The first Prelate of Opus Dei was Álvaro del Portillo, who held the position from 1982 until his death in 1994.[76]
Opus Dei's highest assembled bodies are the General Congresses, which are usually convened once every eight years. There are separate congresses for the men and women's branch of Opus Dei. The General Congresses are made up of members appointed by the Prelate, and are responsible for advising him about the prelature's future. The men's General Congress also elects the Prelate from a list of candidates chosen by their female counterparts.[77] After the death of a Prelate, a special elective General Congress is convened. The women nominate their preferred candidates for the prelate and is voted upon by the men to become the next Prelate—an appointment that must be confirmed by the Pope.[77]
Wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei)
-
They will now have to follow the new code of Canon Law, for instance. They will also have to pay diocesan taxes, as well as St. Peter's Penny. You can guess how that money will be used by the dioceses and the Vatican. They will also have to participate to diverse undertakings, such as Synods, World Youth Days, Canonizations ceremonies, diocesan promotional activities, welcoming of "Refugee families", and so forth and so on. They will also need to display Vatican and diocesan posters for the promotion of diverse causes (ex: Novus Ordo seminaries).
OK, but what if the SSPX says "thank you for the recognition, but we will not do any of the above - you accepted us as we are, so we will not change anything"?
I agree with Incredulous that it is unlikely that after all these years of negotiations Vatican suddenly dropped any demands, so I'm rather speculating about practical meaning of such unilateral recognition.
-
They will now have to follow the new code of Canon Law, for instance. They will also have to pay diocesan taxes, as well as St. Peter's Penny. You can guess how that money will be used by the dioceses and the Vatican. They will also have to participate to diverse undertakings, such as Synods, World Youth Days, Canonizations ceremonies, diocesan promotional activities, welcoming of "Refugee families", and so forth and so on. They will also need to display Vatican and diocesan posters for the promotion of diverse causes (ex: Novus Ordo seminaries).
OK, but what if the SSPX says "thank you for the recognition, but we will not do any of the above - you accepted us as we are, so we will not change anything"?
I agree with Incredulous that it is unlikely that after all these years of negotiations Vatican suddenly dropped any demands, so I'm rather speculating about practical meaning of such unilateral recognition.
But practically speaking, we have to consider the REALITY that it's too late for a one-sided anything, since the SSPX has feverishly been working over the past several years (especially the last 3) to purge its ranks (priests, plus 1/4 of their bishops) and purge its bookstores and bring themselves more in line with Conciliar Rome (and, by extension, the Modern World).
The Resistance hasn't been engaged in such sellout activity. Unlike the SSPX, they haven't been working to make themselves more "ready for a deal with Rome", to remove obstacles, etc. UNLIKE THE SSPX, the Resistance never started anything like G.R.E.C. whose stated purpose was to work to remove obstacles to an agreement with Rome.
Now the SSPX is resorting to litigation against people who want to release the works of Archbishop Lefebvre. They can't have the Archbishop's words getting out there to condemn their own recent actions.
-
They will now have to follow the new code of Canon Law, for instance. They will also have to pay diocesan taxes, as well as St. Peter's Penny. You can guess how that money will be used by the dioceses and the Vatican. They will also have to participate to diverse undertakings, such as Synods, World Youth Days, Canonizations ceremonies, diocesan promotional activities, welcoming of "Refugee families", and so forth and so on. They will also need to display Vatican and diocesan posters for the promotion of diverse causes (ex: Novus Ordo seminaries).
OK, but what if the SSPX says "thank you for the recognition, but we will not do any of the above - you accepted us as we are, so we will not change anything"?
I agree with Incredulous that it is unlikely that after all these years of negotiations Vatican suddenly dropped any demands, so I'm rather speculating about practical meaning of such unilateral recognition.
What you have to understand is that you cannot ask such a rhetorical question in the circuмstances. "What if?".
That is because such an unilateral recognition would not have been granted without the SSPX having given some guarantees about its accepting it and accepting the practical consequences, at least those regarding laws. There is no such thing for Rome as a valid 1917 Code anymore. This was replaced in 1983 by the New Code, which is putting into laws the principles of Vatican II. The other adaptations, of which I gave examples, will come step by step in due time, and Rome may not have spelled them out to Bishop Fellay. This is the whole reason why Rome wants to recognize the Society. Rome knows that, once you have been incorporated in their structure, you will be transformed little by little (see Le Barroux, Campos, Papa Stronsay, etc.).
The thing is: You can't take out of the equation the fact that Bishop Fellay, and his Assistants and Major Superiors, have been seeking such a recognition. Go back to the 2012 docuмents and interviews. So, after they will be recognized, they will want to keep it that wayl they will fear to lose what took them so many years to achieve, and at such great cost as the internal division/expulsion of its members. They want to change Rome from the inside. This is an illusion, of course, but they believe they can. They will not let a few "minor" things (such as I have described before) get in the way of their new mission.
The other thing you have to consider is that the SSPX, by accepting this reintegration, will give credence to the tale that, after all, Rome is not too bad. It will give Rome a certain aura of honorability, because the Society represents, in the eyes of the general public, a group that holds fast to multi-secular Tradition. Thus, such a recognition, if accepted by the Society, will have the same result than the 1984 Indult, the 1988 recognition of Le Barroux and the FSSP, the 2007 Motu Proprio, etc. It will weaken, in the mind of the general public, the legitimacy of those who will continue to fight for Tradition (the Resistance). People will say: "Why are you not doing like the SSPX? If it is good enough for them, it should be good enough for you! You have no more justification to remain outside! You are not Catholic anymore!" I tell you, there is more to all this than meets the eye.
-
The fssp has in their bylaws that they will "interpret V2 in the light of tradition" and also "accept that the new sacraments are valid". This is certainly a GREAT compromise of the Faith (and it's just the tip of the iceberg). I just can't see how the sspx would be able to agree to anything less. V2 and the new mass are the backbone of new-rome's freemasonic religion.
-
This is old, and somewhat different, because as many have pointed out, the SSPX already started to compromise & change long before any deal, but just as an example:
New French traditionalist priestly society founded
By Brian Mershon
From the Sept. 21, 2006, issue of The Wanderer
Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos announced the creation of the Institute of the Good Shepherd in a docuмent released on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, September 8.
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, ... wrote that this new institute has been erected as a pastoral measure for those faithful attached to the ancient liturgical traditions in Bordeaux, France. This Institute has been established ad experimentum for a period of five years as a personal parish that will include the church of St. Eloi.
... The five priests of the new Institute were originally priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), who for various reasons over the past few years have become disassociated with it. They also have several seminarians, some of whom will be ordained soon by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, according to news reports.
...Regarding the priests within the newly erected Institute, he reportedly said that Rome required no concessions from the priests, presumably regarding the Second Vatican Council, and in fact, insisted that they work together in harmony with the Church to re-clarify its doctrines in the current climate of confusion. "No compromise was required!" said Abbot Laguérie, in the September 11 edition.
Rome demands that the Institut Bon Pasteur integrate itself with Vatican II
April 2012
The Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Monsignor Guido Pozzo, on March 23 sent Father Philip Laguérie, Superior of the Good Shepherd Institute (IBP), the official recommendations of his commission as a result of the canonical visitation of his institute, according to docuмents posted on the Internet. This canonical visit came at the end of the five-years term of experimentation decided, by Rome at the time of the creation of the IBP.
This institute was founded in September 2006 by former members of the Society of St. Pius X who came to an agreement with Rome, including Frs. Philippe Laguérie, Paul Aulagnier and Guillaume de Tanouarn. The new institute had obtained "exclusive use" of the liturgical books in force before the Council.
"It must be clarified" that this use is "in the spirit of Summorum Pontificuм," said the Ecclesia Dei Commission today, in a note appended to the letter of Bishop Pozzo. It thus demmands that account must be taken of the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI liberalising the usage of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite but forbidding the exclusion of the New Rite, as a matter of principle. "It should suffice simply to define this form [i.e. the Traditional Mass] as 'the rite proper to the Institute', without speaking of 'exclusivity' " said the Ecclesia Dei Commision.
...Concerning the priestly formation given at the seminary Courtalain, in the Eure-et-Loire, France, the Commission judges it's evaluation as "positive" but demands "that the Good Shepherd Institute integrate into its studies the magisterium of Vatican II and of recent/current Popes."
On the merits of training, "more than meerly criticising the Second Vatican Council, even when done in a "serious and constructive" way, the efforts of teachers should focus on the transmission of the entire patrimony of the Church, emphasizing the hermeneutics of renewal in continuity and taking for supporting the integrity of Catholic doctrine expounded by the Catechism of the Catholic Church," says Ecclesia Dei.
Finally, Ecclesia Dei suggests better collaboration with the diocesan bishops: "It is important that the bishop welcomes and values ​​the specific charism of the institute for the good of the whole diocese and at the same time, that the priests of the institute really fit with the spirit of communion throughout the life of the Church of the Diocese."
-
The fssp has in their bylaws that they will "interpret V2 in the light of tradition" and also "accept that the new sacraments are valid". This is certainly a GREAT compromise of the Faith (and it's just the tip of the iceberg). I just can't see how the sspx would be able to agree to anything less. V2 and the new mass are the backbone of new-rome's freemasonic religion.
Yes!
Rome is evil but not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. A non-converted Rome cannot, by definition, do anything that is truly favoring Tradition. It can only do things that SEEM to favor Tradition. Their intent cannot be, by definition, anything else than trying to extinguish Tradition. We have to understand that there is a radical opposition between New-Church and the Catholic Church.
The efforts by the Society to obtain a recognition from New Church, and their foreseeable acceptance of it when it will come, is a denial of this radical opposition between these two Churches.
It is already a great victory for those who have highjacked the seats of power of the Catholic Church since the 60's, and who have changed her into a modernist church, to have made the most important group of Tradition (the SSPX) believe that this New Church has remained one and the same with the Catholic Church they have invaded.
The paradox is this: While the SSPX desperately wants Modernist Rome to say the Society is Catholic, by accepting such a recognition from Rome, the SSPX is in turn recognizing Modernist Rome as Catholic.
-
So two corrupt gangs merge and legitimize each other.
It's obvious the SSPX has made secret concessions, and that Bp. Fellay has developed his own
"I am trad church!" theology.
However, "Prelature" gives them a good excuse and hiding place for now.
-
The new church is creating her own traditions. Instead of the Council of Trent as the reference point, we have the Second Vatican Council as the foundation for that new glorious future and the inspiration for its believers. Traditionalists of the original hue will be tempted to switch their focus towards the new creation and see in it a structure that can accommodate their style of worship and one that contains elements of the old. The greatest trick, of course, is the ability of the conciliarists to fool us into believing their creation is no different to the one before. Bp. Fellay and company have had to train themselves into accepting this to be true in the main. Those of us that do not, he is logically forced to call schismatic, sedevacantist and rigorist.
-
So two corrupt gangs merge and legitimize each other.
It's obvious the SSPX has made secret concessions, and that Bp. Fellay has developed his own
"I am trad church!" theology.
However, "Prelature" gives them a good excuse and hiding place for now.
Just a point of distinction; If I understood the priest's remarks in the video he said something similar to "the SSPX will have a jurisdiction that only the Apostles have enjoyed in the history of the Church..." By that, I assume he is referring to an Apostolic Administration with worldwide jurisdiction as opposed to a Personal Prelature.
-
B from A,
Great post which gives hard evidence on how Rome operates. Many don't need that reminder, but there are some who (still) don't believe that Rome wants to destroy, not include.
-
So two corrupt gangs merge and legitimize each other.
It's obvious the SSPX has made secret concessions, and that Bp. Fellay has developed his own
"I am trad church!" theology.
However, "Prelature" gives them a good excuse and hiding place for now.
Just a point of distinction; If I understood the priest's remarks in the video he said something similar to "the SSPX will have a jurisdiction that only the Apostles have enjoyed in the history of the Church..." By that, I assume he is referring to an Apostolic Administration with worldwide jurisdiction as opposed to a Personal Prelature.
At what cost? It is obvious from the Comfort Zone interview with +Fellay that if he joins the Modernists, he will be muzzled. The interview should be a warning to +Fellay of the future of the SSPX under Modernists.
-
So two corrupt gangs merge and legitimize each other.
It's obvious the SSPX has made secret concessions, and that Bp. Fellay has developed his own
"I am trad church!" theology.
However, "Prelature" gives them a good excuse and hiding place for now.
Just a point of distinction; If I understood the priest's remarks in the video he said something similar to "the SSPX will have a jurisdiction that only the Apostles have enjoyed in the history of the Church..." By that, I assume he is referring to an Apostolic Administration with worldwide jurisdiction as opposed to a Personal Prelature.
Yes, but doesn't Opus Dei have the same worldwide license built into their Prelature?
-
:facepalm: Conflict Zone, of course.
-
So two corrupt gangs merge and legitimize each other.
It's obvious the SSPX has made secret concessions, and that Bp. Fellay has developed his own
"I am trad church!" theology.
However, "Prelature" gives them a good excuse and hiding place for now.
Just a point of distinction; If I understood the priest's remarks in the video he said something similar to "the SSPX will have a jurisdiction that only the Apostles have enjoyed in the history of the Church..." By that, I assume he is referring to an Apostolic Administration with worldwide jurisdiction as opposed to a Personal Prelature.
Yes, but doesn't Opus Dei have the same worldwide license built into their Prelature?
I believe that is true, yes. I also understand they are the only Personal Prelature in the Church. Campos is an Apostolic Administration but only with jurisdiction in that diocese.
A prelature would be, in some way, subject to diocesan bishops within the jurisdiction (whether a single diocese or worldwide). An Apostolic Administration is subject only to the Pope, and the Apostolic Administrator essentially acts as the "Bishop" of that "Diocese." If I understand the priest in the video correctly, it would be a worldwide "diocese" subject only to the Pope.
By the way, I am not arguing for or against. Just trying to gain some clarity from what the priest said. Since, Opus Dei has worldwide jurisdiction under a Personal Prelature, then the priest's words can only mean (I think) an Apostolic Administration/Personal Ordinariate/Diocese with worldwide jurisdiction, which, quite literally, hasn't been erected since the Apostles.
-
...
-
Ladislaus, I'm disappointed. You're smarter than that.
Are you implying we're all wrong that they're working for a deal? Even with all the latest information about the Priors' meeting, Fr. Vernoy's sermon, etc.?
The writing is on the wall. Like the Fed, the SSPX "projects" their next move so there are no hiccups in the market. You can't really have a true surprise of this magnitude. Anyone paying attention will not be surprised.
The only other way to interpret your post is that you "can't wait" for the SSPX-Rome deal, but that's even more unlikely.
-
I'll see your meme and raise you a half-dozen:
-
Ladislaus, I'm disappointed. You're smarter than that.
Are you implying we're all wrong that they're working for a deal? Even with all the latest information about the Priors' meeting, Fr. Vernoy's sermon, etc.?
LOL. No, it's more a commentary about the rumors of deals being imminent. Haven't there been about a dozen of these already? I know that they are "working" towards a deal, but the "imminent deal" types of rumors are beginning to annoy.
Mostly, though, I was having a little fun with the meme creator.
-
I'll see your meme and raise you a half-dozen:
Love the Boromir meme! -- "One does not simply dismiss ..."
-
...
-
...
-
Oops Bp. Fellay did it again ! :applause:
-
There are Protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism. One is pastor with wife, children and grandchildren of the biggest parishes in the diocese.
Which diocese is this?!
Nj diocese of camden. Cherry hill
-
(1) Tomorrow will I hear a sermon about Amoris laetitia?
(2) When the JSPX is absorbed, what happens to the Rothschild-Guttman money?