Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on May 15, 2012, 07:40:29 PM
-
In an rare move, the Superior of the United States District of the Society
of Saint Pius X issued a special second monthly letter to the faithful today
dealing with the current status of things within the Society following the
publication of the leaked internal letters last week.
5-15-2012
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
Recently, private letters between the three bishops of the Society and the
General Council were leaked. As these docuмents are now public, I wish to
make a few comments.
First of all, I want to denounce the immorality, as well as the
revolutionary nature, of publishing such private docuмents. If it can be
grave matter to read private letters, as moral theology teaches, it is even
more serious to publish or distribute them without the permission of the
authors. Furthermore, it is subversive to publish private discussions
between superiors because it puts undue pressure on them. A superior must be
able to make a decision in view of the common good and not because of any
pressures.
Usually the defense of the Faith is invoked to justify such actions. It is,
indeed, clear that the theological virtue of Faith is above the moral
virtues but it cannot justify acting against them.
-
Special Letter of District Superior
5-15-2012
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
Recently, private letters between the three bishops of the Society and the General Council were leaked. As these docuмents are now public, I wish to make a few comments.
First of all, I want to denounce the immorality, as well as the revolutionary nature, of publishing such private docuмents. If it can be grave matter to read private letters, as moral theology teaches, it is even more serious to publish or distribute them without the permission of the authors. Furthermore, it is subversive to publish private discussions between superiors because it puts undue pressure on them. A superior must be able to make a decision in view of the common good and not because of any pressures.
Usually the defense of the Faith is invoked to justify such actions. It is, indeed, clear that the theological virtue of Faith is above the moral virtues but it cannot justify acting against them.
It is essential to remember that letters of this kind are normal ways of communicating between members of the Society on a very important matter. It is normal and good that bishops or even priests of the Society should be able to express their personal opinions in a respectful way and in a spirit of charity. Once again it is their publication without the consent of both parties, which is unacceptable.
What are the principles that must guide us today? First of all, we must ask ourselves who has the authority to make such a decision. It is clear that the Superior General has the responsibility of the Society of St. Pius X and will render an account to Almighty God. It is notable for us to recall that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself wanted the matter of our relations with Rome to be handled and decided by the Superior General:
Thus in principle, the one who will be responsible for relations with Rome after I pass away is the Superior General of the Society, Fr. Schmidberger, who still has six years left in his term as Superior General. It is he who, eventually, will henceforth be in charge of contacts with Rome in order to continue the conversations, if indeed they continue or if contact is maintained, which will be unlikely for a while since L’Osservatore Romano is going to print a big headline: “Archbishop Lefebvre, Schismatic, Excommunicated.” For X number of years, perhaps two or three, I have no idea, it will be separation. (Press Conference, Econe, June 15, 1988)
As a matter of fact, the acknowledgment of the authority of Bishop Fellay in such a matter is expressed in both letters; on the one hand, in the letter of the three bishops, the respectful pleading not to make a purely practical agreement implies the recognition of the Superior General's authority to make such a decision. On the other hand, in the General Council’s letter, this principle is reaffirmed. If there is a disagreement on what to do, there is nevertheless respect and recognition of the principle of authority.
The second notion that we must keep in mind is our attachment to Eternal Rome. We have always professed this attachment while refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies of our times. As the Catholic Church is at the same time both human and divine, it is necessary to have a supernatural approach to the actual problems within the Catholic Church. This is why we reaffirm our Faith in Eternal Rome, with Pope Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and visible head of His Church, while recognizing the dramatic situation of the Church today and the difficult but necessary task of keeping these two in balance.
The last point, and not the least, is the indispensable defense of the Faith in times of crisis. There must be no doubt that the fight for the Faith, the denouncing of errors, and the spread of Tradition would continue even within a “new canonical structure,” as His Excellency Bishop Fellay has repeatedly affirmed. Our Superior General; and his assistants have expressed their conviction that the possibility of a personal prelature is not a trap. This is a prudential question and different opinions are possible, but the final decision belongs only to the Superior General.
I have been regularly and recently in contact with His Excellency Bishop Fellay and other superiors of the Society. Further, I can assure you of the unity which exists in our District, following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, which continues to be manifested today. Do not be disturbed by media reports, which may prematurely, and without sufficient information, prophesy many things.
At this hour, we do not know what will be the outcome of this situation. Will the Society of St. Pius X be “recognized” or will we have to stay in the same situation for some more time? We trust and hope that whatever circuмstances Providence determines will lead to a restoration of Tradition. Let us therefore keep in our prayers both the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay, that the Holy Ghost may guide them under such difficult circuмstances, in addition to the whole Society and her priests. Be assured of my prayers and may the Immaculate Heart of Mary protect the Society of St. Pius X.
Fr. Arnaud Rostand
-
If you think you need to thumb me down for what Fr Rostand has to say, rest assured I don't agree with his sentiments. I didn't think it likely that he'd come and post his letter himself, though.
-
There is so much wrong in this letter.
Letters also belong to the recipients and, barring a demand for confidentiality, are not confidential. Unless the letters were stolen, they were distributed by an owner, whether sender or recipient. There is no evidence that confidentiality was requested or due until after the letters had already entered the public domain. The bell cannot be un-rung. These are now public letters.
"...express their personal opinions in a respectful way ..." As if informing three holy bishops that they "lack supernatural spirit" is a respectful personal opinion?
"[T]he theological virtue of Faith is above the moral virtues but it cannot justify acting against them." As if Krahgate, "uranium," "hand grenades," "Elder Brothers," and Jєωιѕн fables are consistent with the virtue of Faith? What hypocrisy!
"What are the principles that must guide us today? First of all, we must ask ourselves who has the authority to make such a decision. " No, first of all, we must ask ourselves, "What is the right thing to do?" If we can question and correct Popes (as we should!), we can and should certainly question and correct a Superior General. Lest we forget, the Superior General is not the Vicar of Jesus Christ; neither does he have the charisms of papal office.
"If there is a disagreement on what to do, there is nevertheless respect and recognition of the principle of authority...." And Justice.
"[W]hile refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies of our times." "There must be no doubt that the fight for the Faith, the denouncing of errors, and the spread of Tradition would continue even within a 'new canonical structure,' as His Excellency Bishop Fellay has repeatedly affirmed." Like "fighting for the Faith" and "refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies" of Zionism, "six million" Jєωιѕн fables, X-rated films, usury, Judaic economics, and lawyers who sabotage a bishop's legal defense while liking Louise 'Madonna' Ciccione?
"I can assure you of the unity which exists in our District...." Assumes facts not in evidence.
"At this hour, we do not know what will be the outcome of this situation." However, we certainly know that the Superior General's prudence and overbearing deserves question in view of what has already transpired (see above) under his authority.
May the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost replace officiousness, disdain, fratricide, affinity with ʝʊdɛօ-Zionism, and the dark works of secrecy.
-
Special Letter of District Superior
5-15-2012
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
Recently, private letters between the three bishops of the Society and the General Council were leaked. As these docuмents are now public, I wish to make a few comments.
First of all, I want to denounce the immorality, as well as the revolutionary nature, of publishing such private docuмents. If it can be grave matter to read private letters, as moral theology teaches, it is even more serious to publish or distribute them without the permission of the authors. Furthermore, it is subversive to publish private discussions between superiors because it puts undue pressure on them. A superior must be able to make a decision in view of the common good and not because of any pressures.
Usually the defense of the Faith is invoked to justify such actions. It is, indeed, clear that the theological virtue of Faith is above the moral virtues but it cannot justify acting against them.
It is essential to remember that letters of this kind are normal ways of communicating between members of the Society on a very important matter. It is normal and good that bishops or even priests of the Society should be able to express their personal opinions in a respectful way and in a spirit of charity. Once again it is their publication without the consent of both parties, which is unacceptable.
What are the principles that must guide us today? First of all, we must ask ourselves who has the authority to make such a decision. It is clear that the Superior General has the responsibility of the Society of St. Pius X and will render an account to Almighty God. It is notable for us to recall that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself wanted the matter of our relations with Rome to be handled and decided by the Superior General:
Thus in principle, the one who will be responsible for relations with Rome after I pass away is the Superior General of the Society, Fr. Schmidberger, who still has six years left in his term as Superior General. It is he who, eventually, will henceforth be in charge of contacts with Rome in order to continue the conversations, if indeed they continue or if contact is maintained, which will be unlikely for a while since L’Osservatore Romano is going to print a big headline: “Archbishop Lefebvre, Schismatic, Excommunicated.” For X number of years, perhaps two or three, I have no idea, it will be separation. (Press Conference, Econe, June 15, 1988)
As a matter of fact, the acknowledgment of the authority of Bishop Fellay in such a matter is expressed in both letters; on the one hand, in the letter of the three bishops, the respectful pleading not to make a purely practical agreement implies the recognition of the Superior General's authority to make such a decision. On the other hand, in the General Council’s letter, this principle is reaffirmed. If there is a disagreement on what to do, there is nevertheless respect and recognition of the principle of authority.
The second notion that we must keep in mind is our attachment to Eternal Rome. We have always professed this attachment while refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies of our times. As the Catholic Church is at the same time both human and divine, it is necessary to have a supernatural approach to the actual problems within the Catholic Church. This is why we reaffirm our Faith in Eternal Rome, with Pope Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and visible head of His Church, while recognizing the dramatic situation of the Church today and the difficult but necessary task of keeping these two in balance.
The last point, and not the least, is the indispensable defense of the Faith in times of crisis. There must be no doubt that the fight for the Faith, the denouncing of errors, and the spread of Tradition would continue even within a “new canonical structure,” as His Excellency Bishop Fellay has repeatedly affirmed. Our Superior General; and his assistants have expressed their conviction that the possibility of a personal prelature is not a trap. This is a prudential question and different opinions are possible, but the final decision belongs only to the Superior General.
I have been regularly and recently in contact with His Excellency Bishop Fellay and other superiors of the Society. Further, I can assure you of the unity which exists in our District, following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre, which continues to be manifested today. Do not be disturbed by media reports, which may prematurely, and without sufficient information, prophesy many things.
At this hour, we do not know what will be the outcome of this situation. Will the Society of St. Pius X be “recognized” or will we have to stay in the same situation for some more time? We trust and hope that whatever circuмstances Providence determines will lead to a restoration of Tradition. Let us therefore keep in our prayers both the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay, that the Holy Ghost may guide them under such difficult circuмstances, in addition to the whole Society and her priests. Be assured of my prayers and may the Immaculate Heart of Mary protect the Society of St. Pius X.
Fr. Arnaud Rostand
My observations:
1) Fr. Rostand spends a good deal of this letter defending the authority of Bishop Fellay to decide on this matter. Not sure why. Te bulwark of the resistence formed against him does not question his authority to decide the matter, but the prudence of his obvious orientation, as well as its consequences for the Faith (i.e., Does it represent an implicit acceptance of doctrinal pluralism that is against the Faith);
2) He then mentions attachment to Eternal Rome. Again, one must wonder why, since attachment to eternal Rome is not in question, but rather the attachment to Modernist Rome that Bishop Fellay wants to cement by accepting a practical agreement while all the doctrinal issues still divide us into camps of true and false Catholicism.
3) Finally, he comes to the heart of the matter at the end of the letter: The defense of the Faith in this time of crisis. He says this can be waged within the context of a personal prelature, and that such is not a trap. Can he cite a single example of a formerly traditional group regularized that was not neutered? And even more to the point, can he explain why the leadership of the SSPX lied, in the form of a sustained campaign, to the faithful, repeatedly assuring us that there would be no agreement until the doctrinal issues had been resolved.
Apparently you are not supposed to remember that part.
Apparently, without explanation sufficient to overcome the 3 bishops protests, the post-1988 strategy of Archbishop Lefebvre has mysteriously (and almost overnight) become irrelevent.
I think the 3 bishops have stated the case against Bishop Fellay's strategy so well as to leave scarcely anything to be said on the matter.
Yet, apparently all the District Superior can muster is an argument from authority (like his new Vatican friends, who themselves have sidestepped the doctrinal arguments of traditionalists against the modernist doctrines now proliferating and rending the vinyard with heresies by the handful).
No, Fr. Rostand.
We do not agree with you, or anyone else who supports taking a seat alongside the apostates while they remain enemies of Christ.
In the words of your illustrious founder to Cardinal Ratzinger:
"Eminence, even if you gave us the Mass and sacraments, independence from the bishops, the churches and seminaries. Still we could not collaborate with you. Because we are working to restore the social kingshop of Christ, and you are working to destroy it."
Most certainly, the Pope is the Pope until a future Pope says otherwise.
But we will not help him to destroy the faint flame of truth still found in the human element of the universal Church by placing ourselves into the hands of the devil's minions.
We will wait them out, confident that the Lord and Church provide sufficient for our needs until we again get a Pope willing to take hold of the rudder and right the ship.
If this Pope wanted us to help eradicate the modernism so dear to him, our answer would be different.
We would rally to his defense, and shed out blood that Christ could reign again!
But it is not modernism's eradication he desires, but rather our silence on the matter!
Does Christ want us to be silent in the face of those betraying their vocations (be they priest or Pope)?
To affirm this is nearly blasphemy!
We will fight for Christ, and the restoration of normalcy to the universal Church.
-
My observation from the letter is that the U.S. District will happily take whatever course of action Bishop Fellay takes. My observation from the priest that serves my parish confirms this.
Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?
-
Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?
I'll go you one further... why is there anyone sitting in an SSPX pew who favors a TLM and priest which are compromised for the sake of unity with modernist Rome? I can see such happening a decade ago when diocesan TLMs were rare, but today?
-
While there is the proverbial ice cube's chance in hell of it passing Rorate's moderation, I submitted this:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/sspx-us-district-superior-final.html
Though I understand his duty of obedience, it must be respectfully said that there is much wrong with Fr. Rostand's letter.
Letters also belong to the recipients and, barring a demand for confidentiality, are not properly presumed to be confidential. Unless the letters were stolen, they were distributed by an owner, whether sender or recipient. There is no evidence that confidentiality was requested or due until after the letters had already entered the public domain. The bell cannot be un-rung. These are now public letters.
"...express their personal opinions in a respectful way ..." As if informing three holy bishops that they "lack supernatural spirit" is a respectful personal opinion?
"[T]he theological virtue of Faith is above the moral virtues but it cannot justify acting against them." As if Krahgate, "uranium," "hand grenades," "Elder Brothers," and Jєωιѕн fables are consistent with the virtue of Faith? These facts, too, are in the public domain. Humility and kindness, not derisive fratricidal epithets and analogies, would be evidence of "supernatural spirit" that would worthily be respected and emulated.
"What are the principles that must guide us today? First of all, we must ask ourselves who has the authority to make such a decision. " No, first of all, we must ask ourselves, "What is the right thing to do?" If we can—and should—question and correct Popes, we can and should certainly question and correct a Superior General. Lest we forget, the Superior General is not the Vicar of Jesus Christ; neither does he have the charisms of papal office.
"If there is a disagreement on what to do, there is nevertheless respect and recognition of the principle of authority...." And Truth and Justice.
"[W]hile refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies of our times." "There must be no doubt that the fight for the Faith, the denouncing of errors, and the spread of Tradition would continue even within a 'new canonical structure,' as His Excellency Bishop Fellay has repeatedly affirmed." Like "fighting for the Faith" and "refusing to follow the neo-Modernist tendencies" of Zionism, "six million" Jєωιѕн fables, X-rated films, usury, Judaic economics, and lawyers who sabotage a bishop's legal defense while liking Louise 'Madonna' Ciccione?
"I can assure you of the unity which exists in our District...." Assumes facts not in evidence.
"At this hour, we do not know what will be the outcome of this situation." Whether any of us like it or not and in view of what has already transpired under his authority, we certainly know that the Superior General's secrecy, prudence, and overbearing has raised questions, not excluding the US District.
I pray that the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost replace officiousness, disdain, fratricide, affinity with ʝʊdɛօ-Zionism, power politics, false obedience, and the dark works of secrecy.
I encourage Seraphim and others—ahem, Lord Phan—to attempt to post their observations at Rorate. Perhaps one of us will survive the enemy's "moderation."
-
My observation from the letter is that the U.S. District will happily take whatever course of action Bishop Fellay takes. My observation from the priest that serves my parish confirms this.
Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?
My sentiments exactly. Our family has attended an SSPX chapel for 26 years now. We always supported the Society for its opposition to Modernism. Now, we may have to consider other options for the Mass and Sacraments that are closer to home. Is "NewSSPX" going to offer anything more beneficial to the salvation of our souls than the diocesan TLM or FSSP? Time will tell, but the waters are about to get a lot muddier for many of us. :confused1:
-
My observation from the letter is that the U.S. District will happily take whatever course of action Bishop Fellay takes. My observation from the priest that serves my parish confirms this.
Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?
My sentiments exactly. Our family has attended an SSPX chapel for 26 years now. We always supported the Society for its opposition to Modernism. Now, we may have to consider other options for the Mass and Sacraments that are closer to home. Is "NewSSPX" going to offer anything more beneficial to the salvation of our souls than the diocesan TLM or FSSP? Time will tell, but the waters are about to get a lot muddier for many of us. :confused1:
Yep.
-
I guess everyone posting here pretty much ASSumes that Fellay has struck a deal that will silence the SSPX on matters they have always been critical of. That is odd since everything Fellay or those appointed to represent him have said the contrary. They will not be quiet on the issues of ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality or the NOM. If Rome requires their silence, there will be no deal. How many times does he have to say it? I have heard/read this right up to the last letter to Friends and Benefactors ...
First of all, it's "Bishop Fellay" -- not just "Fellay." And two, how do you know the reconciliation won't have a chilling effect on discussions of ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc.? An agreement of any kind is only as good as the level of enforcement. You accuse members of this forum of groundless speculation, but it seems you're doing a pretty good job of it yourself! :laugh1:
-
Let's not lose sight of Seraphim's salient observation: Millions of Rosaries were prayed on the promise that there would be no agreement without settling doctrinal matters. To break that promise is an offense against the Blessed Mother.
-
My observation from the letter is that the U.S. District will happily take whatever course of action Bishop Fellay takes. My observation from the priest that serves my parish confirms this.
Question: If the SSPX is "regularized", why should anyone travel a long distance for an SSPX Mass if an FSSP or other TLM Mass is available closer to home? If the SSPX is "regularized", doesn't that mean that the main purpose of the SSPX is now to preserve the "smells and bells" of tradition?
First off, your question is premature. It is a good question, but it is way too soon to be thinking about that.
I guess everyone posting here pretty much ASSumes that Fellay has struck a deal that will silence the SSPX on matters they have always been critical of. That is odd since everything Fellay or those appointed to represent him have said the contrary. They will not be quiet on the issues of ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality or the NOM. If Rome requires their silence, there will be no deal. How many times does he have to say it? I have heard/read this right up to the last letter to Friends and Benefactors ...
The FSSP has to tread very lightly on these topics, if they dare at all. They do not have the protection of a Personal Prelature - IF THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS.
We just don't really know yet, do we? Relax. Pray the novena.
Yes, Bishop Fellay and his assistants have said quite a bit of contrarian things, such as:
1) Campos should serve as a warning to us.....and then he announces his desire to follow their path;
2) There will be no practical agreement until the doctrinal issues are resolved.....until he announces on Feb 2 he would take a deal despite all the doctrinal issues remaining;
3) He says a deal must be accepted or we will all become sedevacantists......despite the fact that he ably defeated that sophism when levied against him by Campos
4) He says a personal prelature is not a trap.....despite oberving none have ever gone the route of traditionalism and remained traditional
But again, just like in 1984, you are supposed to follow Big Brother, and train yourself not to notice these contradictions.
It is easier that way.
As Matthew said of Anthony M: Sorry to remove your pacifier.
Don't shoot the messenger.
If you feel the urge to respond, let it address issues #1-4, and show me where I am wrong.
This sellout has been 12 years in the making.
-
...how do you know the reconciliation won't have a chilling effect on discussions of ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc.?
Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha,...
That was hilarious. Tell us another joke. A chilling effect on Judaizing modernists...
Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha!
-
...how do you know the reconciliation won't have a chilling effect on discussions of ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc.?
Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha,...
That was hilarious. Tell us another joke. A chilling effect on Judaizing modernists...
Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha!
Surely you realize I meant a chilling effect on the Society's discussion of these issue -- not Rome's?
-
Let's not lose sight of Seraphim's salient observation: Millions of Rosaries were prayed on the promise that there would be no agreement without settling doctrinal matters. To break that promise is an offense against the Blessed Mother.
Did I make that point?
I don't remember it, but it is an interesting point.
I'm not sure there was ever a specific Rosary crusade for that explicit intention (i.e., no agreement without first settling the doctrinal issues), but I suppose you could argue that such an intention was implicit, since this is what the SSPX faithful had always understood, given the oft-published position of the SSPX.
-
First of all, it's "Bishop Fellay" -- not just "Fellay." And two, how do you know the reconciliation won't have a chilling effect on discussions of ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc.? An agreement of any kind is only as good as the level of enforcement. You accuse members of this forum of groundless speculation, but it seems you're doing a pretty good job of it yourself! :laugh1:
You are correct: in my haste I have been disrespectful. The least I could do is type +Fellay.
I do not know that an agreement would or would not have a chilling effect because I do not know the particulars and my crystal ball is broken (it is in the shop, though). The point is, neither do you.
At the end of the day, we all have to decide if we support the decision IF IT HAPPENS, or we do not. Then, we each proceed according to our conscience.
All I’m saying is: let the DAY HAPPEN before you put His Excellency's head on a pike. He has been faithful to us for 24 years. Can you TRY to give him the benefit of the doubt? Just try ... a little ... for old-time's sake.
-
Yay! I have four critics so far and NO supporters! How fun. :dwarf:
"Carrying water" for false obedience, what else would you expect?
-
...how do you know the reconciliation won't have a chilling effect on discussions of ecuмenism, religious liberty, etc.?
Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha,...
That was hilarious. Tell us another joke. A chilling effect on Judaizing modernists...
Ha, ha, ha, ...... ha, ha, ha!
Surely you realize I meant a chilling effect on the Society's discussion of these issue -- not Rome's?
You mean like all the traditional discussion on the Jews scrubbed from the Society's websites, sanitizing the Faith to satisfy the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan?
These days what gets discussed is what His Officiousness and his kosher thought police allow.
-
Haurietis Aquas, you guys pop up here in sixpacks every other days since the two important letters have been published on Cathinfo. And yet you just come up with the usual tradi-liberal nonsense. We're tired of it. Leave us alone.
-
The SSPX loves it when they use information to spy on people, but they don't like any information exposing them for what they really are.
We know very well how these cult-like gropus disseminate private communications amongst the insiders to the detriment of those who send them.
Those who are morally certain as to what Bishop Fellay is up to have every justification for exposing the menace his intrigues represent.
Perfidy has no rights!
-
The reason these sorts of matter have to be leaked is because of Bishop Fellay's oppressive cult-like grip.
It is absolutely essential to understand how Bishop Fellay is abusing his authority, which is the reason the only reason proofs of his going against the other three bishops can only come out in leaked private communications.
-
Ha, ha, ha.... Rorate-Caeli is so cultic that "New Catholic" did not appreciate the sarcasm here, so the comment survived "moderation":
Thank you, New Catholic, for censoring the criticisms. Even the two you have allowed should be removed. Even the laity must obey everything that His Lordship Fellay says. It doesn't matter what he said before. We must obey what he says now. He knows what is best for us even if it is different from what Abp. Lefebvre taught. Times change. We must change with the times. Thank you for enforcing discipline. Keep up the good work.
Patrick O'Brien
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19978542&postID=6915260935987167149
-
Our refugees from Angelqueen want to retain that semblance of innocence and wishful-thinking in spite of the countless pieces of evidence showing Bp. Fellay's true intentions. They must come clean however and admit that they do want to see a Society at peace with conciliarism even to the extent of abandoning old doctrine and being part of Rome's exciting new religion.
-
Hauriatis,
The opposition to the course Bp. Fellay is taking is not based on wild speculation, but on his own words which manifest a determination to have a covenant with the modernists, and a willingness to apply Joseph Ratzinger's sophism of 'hermeneutics' to the novel doctrines which the Society used to reject.
-
If you think you need to thumb me down for what Fr Rostand has to say, rest assured I don't agree with his sentiments. I didn't think it likely that he'd come and post his letter himself, though.
I thumb-downed you because you are sadly falling for the oldest trick in the book of the father of lies. Fr. Rostand is right on. Lefebvre entrusted the future of the SSPX to the future Superior General(s). The three other bishops are not Fellay's peers; they are his subordinates. This crisis of authority in the conciliar Church as obviously infected the SSPX, too, but NOT by Fellay.
Rumor mongers. Loose lips. Gossips. Avoid them like a plague, because they are a plague.
Relax and pray.
The problem here is that the "lies" have been coming from Bishop Fellay himself who has been saying one thing in public but, as the letters indicate, something else in "confidential" communications.
What is going on in the SSPX today is very reminiscent of the way the entire Catholic Church was changed in a short time in the 1960s. I fear that the same, or at least something very similar, will happen in the SSPX.
The letters are not rumours or gossips. They are hard evidence that something nefarious is going on in the upper echelons of the SSPX.
-
Our refugees from Angelqueen want to retain that semblance of innocence and wishful-thinking in spite of the countless pieces of evidence showing Bp. Fellay's true intentions. They must come clean however and admit that they do want to see a Society at peace with conciliarism even to the extent of abandoning old doctrine and being part of Rome's exciting new religion.
It's not just religion -- that is, what goes on inside the walls of a church on Sunday sort of thing. It's every day, all around us.
I just heard a brodcast of Coast to Coast AM; their guest spoke of his "profession" of freeing customers from the influence of demonic spirits. He respects all the various methods, whether they are religious or not. Noteworthy is the only other religion he mentioned was "Catholic priest." He said he belongs to a non-earthly association of exorcists, that includes aliens, that is, people who live on other planets. Here is the description from the website for today's show (actually yesterday's show):
Demonic Spirits
Tue 05-15
Emotional clearing expert, practicing exorcist, and professional psychic Jeffrey Seelman discussed his work with negative and demonic spirits, how they manifest destructive forces as well as take residence in individuals and dwellings, and what it takes to purge them.
********
Now, I know I'm preaching to the choir to a large degree, but since we have a new influx of "AQ refugees" (not my words), it might be worth noting that Novus Ordo parishoners are much more subject to believing these lies than are traditional Catholics.
It's happening in our own families. We see our children drifting away, led by the spirit of the world, and it reminds us of what we have seen happening to +Fellay and his minions, as they drift ever closer to the Modernism of Rome.
The leaked letters help us to keep our finger on the pulse of the patient, but the patient doesn't want his pulse taken because he wants to drift away without observation.
-
I do not know that an agreement would or would not have a chilling effect because I do not know the particulars and my crystal ball is broken (it is in the shop, though). The point is, neither do you.
No, I can't predict the future. I can certainly study the past, however, and you should try it too. Just look at the FSSP, Campos and other Traditional groups -- all effectively silenced in their criticism of Vatican II after coming to an "agreement" with Rome. I could be wrong in predicting a similar fate for the SSPX, but let's face it, history supports my viewpoint -- not your's.
-
If you think you need to thumb me down for what Fr Rostand has to say, rest assured I don't agree with his sentiments. I didn't think it likely that he'd come and post his letter himself, though.
I thumb-downed you because you are sadly falling for the oldest trick in the book of the father of lies. Fr. Rostand is right on. Lefebvre entrusted the future of the SSPX to the future Superior General(s). The three other bishops are not Fellay's peers; they are his subordinates. This crisis of authority in the conciliar Church as obviously infected the SSPX, too, but NOT by Fellay.
Rumor mongers. Loose lips. Gossips. Avoid them like a plague, because they are a plague.
Relax and pray.
The problem here is that the "lies" have been coming from Bishop Fellay himself who has been saying one thing in public but, as the letters indicate, something else in "confidential" communications.
What is going on in the SSPX today is very reminiscent of the way the entire Catholic Church was changed in a short time in the 1960s. I fear that the same, or at least something very similar, will happen in the SSPX.
The letters are not rumours or gossips. They are hard evidence that something nefarious is going on in the upper echelons of the SSPX.
Archbishop Lefebvre didn't want a bishop to be the Superior General. Why is that? In fact, Father Schmidberger was the Superior General from 1982. So did Archbishop Lefebvre defer to Father Schmidberger? Would Father Schmidberger have dared treat Archbishop Lefebvre the way that Bishop Fellay is treating the other three bishops that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated to ensure the future of the mission he established?
It is insufferable to have to listen to these insane excuses for Bishop Fellay's abuse of his position. It's part of a cult mentality he's helped to foster inside the SSPX, where priests are very fearful to speak their mind lest they be kicked onto the street.
Archbishop Lefebvre chose four bishops in order to ensure that the SSPX could continue to ordain priests and perform additional consecrations. Why four? Why not three or two? In fact at first it was only supposed to be three, Bishop Fellay wasn't one of them.
Bishop Fellay has been engaged in a long-term consolidation of power, and the absolutely appalling way in which his apologists are attacking the other three bishops shows how the legalistic cult mentality of unquestioning obedience to Menzingen is being used to hijack Archbishop Lefebvre's mission.
-
What has happened is that Bishop Fellay, being "double-tongued" gradually maneuvered himself into a position where he can have his way with the rest of the SSPX. It was surely never Archbishop Lefebvre's intention that the three of the four bishops could be shut out of the decisions by a clique that managed to consolidate power. A clique which associates with men like the East German lawyer. Books are written like the one by Father Celier, forewarded by an author who writes for a GOdF journal. This sort of thing is really unbelievable, and what is truly pathetic is the willfull blindness of the cult-like followers of Bishop Fellay.
I really think we can practically speak of a ʝʊdɛօ-masonic hijacking of the SSPX. The idea that Archbishop Lefebvre would insist the other priests submit to this character who has Bishop Williamson's defense hired by a man who identifies with Zionism. It's is INSANE for any REAL Catholic to go along with this. Archbishop Lefebvre himself was threatened with legal action for his politically incorrect remarks, pursued by a European version of the ADL, LICRA. And yet Bishop Fellay has a pro-Zionist managing SSPX money and hiring Bishop Williamson's defense! DOESN'T IT SINK IN JUST HOW BLATANTLY TREACHEROUS AND PERFIDIOUS SUCH CONDUCT IS?
-
The SSPX loves it when they use information to spy on people, but they don't like any information exposing them for what they really are.
We know very well how these cult-like gropus disseminate private communications amongst the insiders to the detriment of those who send them.
Good point. Certainly true in my experience. The SSPX in various countries has behaved in a controlling way with information and exposed private information (and letters) when it has served it's ends.
Besides what if the leaker of the letters were another district superior?
Hypothetically speaking.
-
We know very well how these cult-like gropus disseminate private communications amongst the insiders to the detriment of those who send them.
Perfidy has no rights!
Very true! And if you confront people like the Tridentinpotists about such behavior, they turn around and accuse YOU of "calumny","detraction" ... the works, and demand that YOU make restitution!!!
-
It's is INSANE for any REAL Catholic to go along with this.
Comments of this nature are very malicious, divisive, and not Catholic; I can't say how disgusting it is to read this sort of filth, and moreso knowing that there are some follow your vicious style blindly.
I'm sure there are many good willed Catholics who may indeed go along with this tragedy and stay on the wrong side of the split, if God wills it to happen. Don't fool yourself, I agree: the wrong side is the +Fellay side.
It would be no less than impossible for you to prove these people are any less Catholic than you are; they may be, however, not as learned as many on this board for one reason or another. It is also, therefore, not insane to think that a "REAL" Catholic would indeed go along with this.
If we can all agree that this move is from Evil himself, we can agree that there is going to be much confusion and people on both sides of this issue which are both good willed and bad willed. You think everyone is innocent who is on the non-+Fellay camp?
Its interesting, most of the vehemently anti-+Fellay commentors do not even attend the SSPX. You yourself are a supposed sede who attends an indult mass; do you not see the disparity there? Yet I see no one calling you bad willed.
-
It's is INSANE for any REAL Catholic to go along with this.
Comments of this nature are very malicious, divisive, and not Catholic; I can't say how disgusting it is to read this sort of filth, and moreso knowing that there are some follow your vicious style blindly.
Archbishop Lefebvre used the same words as Telesphorus did: The Archbishop called the Vatican II "an assembly of people gone insane". Direct quote.
Don't you know? But you know what he said about Fr Bisig and his FSSP? Or about Dom Gerard and the other "traditional" liberals? The good Archbishop knew how to talk straight. He was a real man and a real catholic. Love him.
-
It's is INSANE for any REAL Catholic to go along with this.
Comments of this nature are very malicious, divisive, and not Catholic; I can't say how disgusting it is to read this sort of filth, and moreso knowing that there are some follow your vicious style blindly.
Archbishop Lefebvre used the same words as Telesphorus did: The Archbishop called the Vatican II "an assembly of people gone insane". Direct quote.
Don't you know? But you know what he said about Fr Bisig and his FSSP? Or about Don Gerard and the other "traditional" liberals? The good Archbishop could get angry. He was a real man and a real catholic. Love him.
I was talking very specifically about Bishop Fellay's connections with the Zionist.
How is it possible Archbishop Lefebvre's society could be under the control of someone with such connections, while the other three bishops are being shut out?
It really is insane to go along with that.
Now a lot of Catholics don't know about what's really going on, but for those that do, it really is insane to approve of what Bishop Fellay has been doing.
-
It's is INSANE for any REAL Catholic to go along with this.
Comments of this nature are very malicious, divisive, and not Catholic; I can't say how disgusting it is to read this sort of filth, and moreso knowing that there are some follow your vicious style blindly.
Archbishop Lefebvre used the same words as Telesphorus did: The Archbishop called the Vatican II "an assembly of people gone insane". Direct quote.
Mr. Ethelred- comparing the two and what they said as being similar, is insane, how about that?
-
Mr. Ethelred- comparing the two and what they said as being similar, is insane, how about that?
If you can't see the insanity of a Catholic going along with Bishop Fellay's behavior - favoring the Zionist and shutting out the other three bishops, then you have a real problem.
"Going along with" has a broad meaning, but in particular, it has to do with the blind, cultish Bishop Fellay defenders who don't really seem to understand the reasons the society exists in the first place. They are falling for the same tricks: blind obedience and hearing what they want to hear in ambiguous statements. I'm not condemning people who go to SSPX mass, or who will continue to go.
You have a real problem with responding to what is actually said in a post.
-
Aquas, maybe you would be more comfortable posting on the new AngelQueen blog. People like you who are dogmatic in their support of Bishop Fellay aren't welcome here.
-
As concerned as I am, I was going to agree with ONE thing Aquas said, that he doesn't believe the other 3 bishops will pull their support but that post has disappeared.
I watched Bishop Williamson's sermon in S Korea and although he says flat out that he thinks it's a mistake, he also doesn't seem overly agitated.He seems a bit on the resigned side. I would not be surprised if they go along with it for now if a deal is struck and see how it pans out before taking any other action. I can't imagine the 3 bishops and half the priests walking out the very next day. There will be some waiting with bated breath for a year or two, maybe three, however long it takes to see if there's a need to separate.
As much as there is to worry about I think they will try to avoid hysteria and rash decisions not only among themselves but among the faithful as well. And as bad as things look with Bishop Fellay's PC language, we still don't really know what those docuмents contain. Perhaps it will be enough for the SSPX to be able to stick together and work uncompromised. I don't know, I can only hope. Either way, it's going to take some time to get it all figured out. No decisions will be made overnight. Which also gives us a little time to catch our breath and try figure out what we will do as well. We will still have valid sacraments in the meantime.
-
I'm not playing detective but I haven't seen or read any condemnation from any of the 3 (sane) SSPX bishops regarding their "leaked" letter.
How do we know that it wasn't one of the 3 bishops who might have indirectly given permission to have the letter posted. I read on another forum that the letter was actually circulating for 3 weeks before it was actually posted online. :detective:
I pray that the 3 (brave) bishops will finally put their good old boxing gloves on and put on a good fight. Come on Fellay! Fight like a man!
Otherwise ABL sacrificed & died for nothing!
-
This wasn't literally a "leaked" letter, but it is a public, open letter from +Williamson
to Msgr. Bux, in reply to his open letter to the Bishop. He offers some principles
that are directly applicable to the negotiations of Rome with the SSPX.
Therefore, it is directly related to the leaked letters.
I was unable to find it mentioned anywhere on this forum, so I made a new thread
for it in the Crisis area:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/OPEN-REPLY-TO-OPEN-LETTER-OF-MGR-NICOLA-BUX-2