Author Topic: SSPX to Rome - No Deal (Read 11766 times)

Matthew · « **on:** July 14, 2012, 05:51:25 PM »

http://www.periodistadigital.com/religion/mundo/2012/07/14/los-lefebvrianos-anunciaran-manana-que-dicen-no-a-roma-iglesia-religion-vaticano-benedicto.shtml

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #1 on:** July 14, 2012, 06:07:33 PM »

Now the next phase can begin: The purges.
In this manner, the next round of discussions with all those swell guys in Ecclesia Dei will result in a deal.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #2 on:** July 14, 2012, 06:39:08 PM »

Quote from: ultrarigorist

Now the next phase can begin: The purges.
In this manner, the next round of discussions with all those swell guys in Ecclesia Dei will result in a deal.

Actually, I got a bit ahead of myself there. Precisely the next stage will be staged "public outrage" against any priests who spoke out about +Fellay's disastrous antics, for now it is those priests who will be accused of creating turmoil and discord.
THEN the purges will begin...

One could surmise the "public outrage" will be activated by something in the vein of "two minutes hate" á là 1984, delivered from a pulpit near you...

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 14, 2012, 06:58:34 PM »

Is Bishop Fellay going to publicly retract what he said about Vatican II?

I doubt it.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #4 on:** July 14, 2012, 07:57:47 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

But he's not being permitted to work out the next text to go to Rome. The General Chapter made sure they wrote that themselves...

How naïvely amusing. The SG is surrounded by thralls of his own choosing and yet he's not being "permitted" to do something? No, I think someone got that part all wrong..

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #5 on:** July 14, 2012, 08:11:19 PM »

1. No deal
2. Staged outrage.
3. Purges.
4. New round of discussions and "deal".

It's basically all I've ever "prophesied". At any point I'm proven wrong GtG, do by all means please remind me of that (ad nauseam, as seems to be your preferred custom).

I might point out though, that #1 is a hit, even if I did only "prophesy" a day or 2 ago.
Stage 4 may be a year or so off, since there needs to be "discussions" with Müller and the clown from New York, and it all needs to be a good show for the sheep.

Lucca Back · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2012, 08:48:25 PM »

Welcome to the Chapter of 2+2=5 !!

The outcome of this General Chapter is

We don't accept Vatican II and we erase the man who say "Don't accept Vatican II".

We, faithful have to examine these chapter people's mineset very carefully.

They are already in Conciliar mineset!

Elizabeth · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2012, 09:30:25 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

.

Those who have an agenda to split the Fraternity are cursing right now.

Sad but true.

Thursday · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2012, 11:05:09 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
.

Those who have an agenda to split the Fraternity are cursing right now.

Sad but true.

Excluding a senior bishop with a large and loyal support group (Williamson) will hardly lead to unity. But maybe if Williamson and his supportors leave it's not a "split" its a purge, when they say "split" as if this would be a terrible thing they are talking about BP Fellay being removed.

I'm all for the "split."

MaterDominici · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2012, 11:11:05 PM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: Telesphorus
Is Bishop Fellay going to publicly retract what he said about Vatican II?

I doubt it.

So do I.

But he's not being permitted to work out the next text to go to Rome. The General Chapter made sure they wrote that themselves, and sent it, before they dispersed. :)

Are you saying this was a sign that they don't trust his ability to carry out the task??

This "no deal" response surely isn't a surprise to anyone as the same group rejected what was described by Bishop Fellay as the same text just 9 months ago.

Did Rome ever really give any indication that they'd accept anything less or was the idea that the Pope was pleased with the Preamble as adjusted by +Fellay merely a rumor?

Ferdinand · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2012, 11:27:20 PM »

Putting it in plain English.

+Fellay and his ilk going back to apostate-rome would be better than them remaining in charge. At least the cancer in the SSPX would have been cut out!!!

As it is, the cancer remains and will continue to consume the healthy Catholic tissue.

Quote

Pray as though all depended upon God, but act as though all depended upon you.

~ St. Ignatius of Loyola

The War Is Still Very Much On!

MaterDominici · « **Reply #11 on:** July 15, 2012, 12:20:57 AM »

What she said...

Quote from: Berengaria on IA

Yes. To 'not make a deal' is good, but to get the SSPX back to the way she was before, a true resistance to the Revolution, part of the Church Militant, not the church milquetoast, that would be a real victory. To have every priest of the SSPX speak out strongly against an event like Assisi III, not just 2 statements by the District Superior of one country (and one of those against orders, from what I understand, and the second with a bizarre, never seen before imprimatur "the following message has been approved by the Superior General") ... To have someone who lives in one of the largest SSPX parishes in the U.S. not be surprised to hear a really good sermon against Vatican II, because it was the first time they'd heard one like that in years... To not get a 'canonical warning' for preaching a sermon that any SSPX priest could have preached any time in the 1990s without an eyebrow being raised. To have anniversary conferences where priests can preach freely, without having the Ministry of Truth pre-screen the talks, and then censor one afterward, again for content that wouldn't have raised an eyebrow just a few years earlier. I guess I can dream...

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 15, 2012, 01:32:20 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Did Rome ever really give any indication that they'd accept anything less or was the idea that the Pope was pleased with the Preamble as adjusted by +Fellay merely a rumor?

There was clearly a deal in the works, but one side or the other got cold feet.

I'm guessing that when they realized 3 bishops might split off it would destroy the legitimacy of any sort of canonical recognition.

The practical implications of a canonical deal though are staggering when you think about them.

Consider the fact the SSPX would have to recognize conciliar annulments.

(I wouldn't be surprised if there would be certain people, perhaps wealthy eople, who would be supporting a deal for that reason.)

You can be sure the SSPX processes would be liberalized, if they were even allowed to keep them.

Really you can't have two religions in one structure, that's why a deal will mean the end of serious traditionalism in the SSPX.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2012, 02:03:57 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Unity and no deal...

To say there's unity is a bit of a stretch. Even if looking solely at the majority vote of the General Council, we only know that they're unified in rejecting this deal. If you and Tele are correct that Rome wavered in what they'll accept and what they won't, it's certainly possible that they'll do so again. We have no evidence to confirm there is a strong majority against the deal as presented by Bishop Fellay in April.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #14 on:** July 15, 2012, 02:08:08 AM »

There's plenty of evidence that the vast majority of the SSPX membership is opposed to a practical agreement with men who believe in the new religion.