Fr Kurtz once said during a sermon that if anyone has any evidence of Bishop Fellay being a modernist to please show him this evidence.  If someone actually has that evidence, they should contact Fr Kurtz and discuss it with him.

How trite.

Sounds noble and great, until you think about it for more than 2 seconds. His claim is empty and doesn't hold any water.

As I've said before, the support for the Resistance position is legion, for anyone honestly seeking the truth. There is plenty of docuмentation on CathInfo and other sites, for those interested in knowing the truth.

Open your eyes, and you will begin to see.

Fr. Kurtz also encouraged his parishioners to go to Winona's ordinations this year and "See if anything has changed."

Well, a person wouldn't know what's changed unless they knew the "before" as well as the "after".

And a person wouldn't know a false notion of "Tradition" unless they understood the true position of "Tradition" in the first place.

How many people have read the works of Archbishop Lefebvre? And how many just THINK they know him, from bits and pieces cherry-picked and fed to them by their neo-SSPX priests?

How many have read an account of what happened at Vatican II?

How many truly understand, and how many don't want to know anything? I've heard people actually say they "don't want to know anything" because they suspect they might have to do something about it -- including leaving their comfy SSPX chapel.

Anyone thus scared of the truth doesn't deserve to possess the truth any longer.

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Fr Kurtz once said during a sermon that if anyone has any evidence of Bishop Fellay being a modernist to please show him this evidence.  If someone actually has that evidence, they should contact Fr Kurtz and discuss it with him.

How trite.

Sounds noble and great, until you think about it for more than 2 seconds. His claim is empty and doesn't hold any water.

As I've said before, the support for the Resistance position is legion, for anyone honestly seeking the truth. There is plenty of docuмentation on CathInfo and other sites, for those interested in knowing the truth.

Open your eyes, and you will begin to see.

Fr. Kurtz also encouraged his parishioners to go to Winona's ordinations this year and "See if anything has changed."

Well, a person wouldn't know what's changed unless they knew the "before" as well as the "after".

And a person wouldn't know a false notion of "Tradition" unless they understood the true position of "Tradition" in the first place.

How many people have read the works of Archbishop Lefebvre? And how many just THINK they know him, from bits and pieces cherry-picked and fed to them by their neo-SSPX priests?

How many have read an account of what happened at Vatican II?

How many truly understand, and how many don't want to know anything? I've heard people actually say they "don't want to know anything" because they suspect they might have to do something about it -- including leaving their comfy SSPX chapel.

Anyone thus scared of the truth doesn't deserve to possess the truth any longer.

Why didn't anybody take the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012 and a copy of the CNA interview to him?

These seem to indicate, at the least, that there was a change in position, especially regarding the Council and the light of Tradition part.

I would have discussed it with him if I had the chance. It would have been nice to know how he would respond to these two items.

Haha, how is anyone going to know if anything has changed by going to Ordinations? Did he mean you'd see if the ceremony has changed, the grounds? Would things have to get that bad that they were doing NO ceremonies before he took stock? Otherwise I don't know what he would be getting at. You really don't get an inside view at all at Ordinations. You go, you attend the ceremony, you mill around the grounds with a few hundred people and you go home.

Centro: Why didn't anybody take the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012 and a copy of the (CNS) interview to him?

Let me reprint the two major excerpts from the May, 2012 CNS interview:

“Many people have an understanding of the Council which is a wrong understanding.  And we have authorities in Rome who say it.  We may say in the discussions (SSPX/Rome discussions) we see many things which we would have condemned, as being from the Council, are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it.”

“Religious liberty is used in so many ways, and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council said about it.  The Council was presenting a religious liberty which was in fact was (sic) a very very limited one- very limited.  In our talks with Rome they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each one its religion, is false.(sic)”

Let these ludicrous comments sink in.  Because you know what, the SG was not merely referring to "many people" who have a wrong understanding.  In a very underhanded, yet obvious and specific way, he was saying that the Archbishop himself had a wrong understanding of the Council.  The Archbishop condemned many things in the Council, which had he only known better, he would not have done.  and he pointed to "authorities in Rome" who would corroborate what he, Bp. Fellay, was telling them then.  That's what this fallen leader of the fallen sspx was telling the press in May of 2012.

Furthermore, Fellay was then declaring that the Archbishop was way over the top by condemning religious liberty as he did.  Bernie was saying in essence that ABL's view of religious liberty, as it was treated in the Council, was totally overblown  and exaggerated.  Abp. Lefebvre was quite outspoken about the extreme importance and gravity of the religious liberty issue.  But Bernie was poo-pooing all of that.  Truth be told, he was telling these reporters that his boss had had his underwear in a bunch over an issue that played a "very limited," i.e. minor part in V2.

Bp. Fellay was deliberately undermining practically everything the Archbishop stood for.   But Fr. Kurtz and the other young, wet nosed "priors" would never be able to understand that.


 

hollingsworth,

Bp. Fellay was deliberately undermining practically everything the Archbishop stood for.  But Fr. Kurtz and the other young, wet nosed "priors" would never be able to understand that.

As to Bishop Fellay's subversion, it is a fact. As to the new priests, no they would not, see my prior comment.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Why didn't anybody take the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012 and a copy of the CNA interview to him?

These seem to indicate, at the least, that there was a change in position, especially regarding the Council and the light of Tradition part.

I would have discussed it with him if I had the chance. It would have been nice to know how he would respond to these two items.

Probably because they instinctively know that it's a trap.  If one were to take these things to him, they would find themselves persona non grata at that chapel.  

It's merely another manifestation of Newspeak.  Father makes it clear that nothing has changed and even challenges people to show him any evidence that anything has changed while he studiously ignores all the evidence staring him in the face.

This is the simpler, and more likely, explanation.

Sure, it's theoretically possible that Fr. Kurtz is of impeccable good will, but he just can't see the truth of the Resistance position. But it's not probable. As Catholics, we can't assume the worst about people, but we are allowed to be prudent. Unfortunately, we are forced (once again) to sift priests, to figure out which ones are preaching true Catholic doctrine; which ones will help us maintain Tradition and help us save our souls unsullied from the world around us.

We don't have to judge his soul at all. In fact, we aren't supposed to! We shouldn't be giving him a whole lot of thought either way. Just pray for him and the other priests, and move on.

We know objectively what's going on in the SSPX; anyone who can't see that must be avoided. Not with anger, outbursts, or drama -- but calmly avoided nevertheless. Meanwhile, we must support those priests who DO see the problems -- those who are willing to help US to keep the Faith and continue to give us the doubt-free Traditional Mass and sacraments.

Personally, I don't spend any time or energy worrying about individual priests still in the SSPX. My only interest is in figuring out who is leaning towards the Resistance, and who is acting as an enemy. That external forum -- that which affects me and other Catholics I know -- is all that I need to be concerned about.

Only God knows what is inside the hearts of each individual priest. I can't say whether a priest is "good, holy" or not. All I can speak to is a priest's actions -- are they objectively in line with Tradition or not.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Why didn't anybody take the Doctrinal Declaration of 2012 and a copy of the CNA interview to him?

These seem to indicate, at the least, that there was a change in position, especially regarding the Council and the light of Tradition part.

I would have discussed it with him if I had the chance. It would have been nice to know how he would respond to these two items.

Probably because they instinctively know that it's a trap.  If one were to take these things to him, they would find themselves persona non grata at that chapel.  

It's merely another manifestation of Newspeak.  Father makes it clear that nothing has changed and even challenges people to show him any evidence that anything has changed while he studiously ignores all the evidence staring him in the face.

Oh, just by reading these comments with no insight into the situation, I wouldn't have known that.  Anyhow, being the hardhead that I am, I would still have discussed it with him come what may. (and recorded his response without his knowledge with an iphone voice recorder). :nunchaku: