Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521) (Read 2676 times)

Matthew · « **on:** July 08, 2017, 08:44:22 AM »

Number DXXI (521)

July 8, 2017

Menzingen’s Mistake – I
Liberals are wolves, and wolves can only bite –
Catholics who choose to keep away are right!
Not all readers of these “Comments” may appreciate their regular return to what can look like mere “quarrels between priests,” but let such readers recall – or learn – that the Catholic Church exists as the one and only sure means of saving souls for eternal Heaven, while the Devil exists as a first-class agent for sending souls to eternal Hell. If then Our Lord chooses priests to be the agents of His Church, the Devil will attack them, and one of the best means to attack priests is other priests. In fact easily most of the Church’s arch-heretics have been priests, e.g. Bishop Nestor and Fr. Martin Luther. “Quarrels between priests” are only unimportant if nobody still wants to go to Heaven, but then the Devil has really won!
So let us look at the 20-page docuмent put out on June 13 by the priests of SSPX HQ in Menzingen, Switzerland, to defend their having welcomed Conciliar Rome’s April 4 docuмent which proposed more or less close participation by Conciliar churchmen in the celebration of SSPX marriages. Menzingen’s Letter to Clarify and Rectify Marriage Questions is well put together and quite persuasive if one does not notice the special pleading, but it suffers from the crippling defect of the Society’s present leaders in Menzingen, namely it mistakes Conciliar appearances for Catholic substance. In words the “Letter” condemns repeatedly Conciliar errors in general and on marriage in particular, but in action it treats the Conciliar churchmen as though they are normal Catholic churchmen, when in reality they are profoundly abnormal churchmen – they are modernists. In St Paul’s words for the last times, they have “an appearance of godliness, but deny the power thereof” (II Tim. III, 5). And he adds, “Now these avoid.”
Thus the whole first part of the Letter presents the involvement of the diocesan bishop or the parish priest or their delegate in witnessing Catholic marriages to ensure their validity, as classic practice of the Church and part of its law since the Council of Trent. Who disputes that? But the application of this law has been since Vatican II in the hands of churchmen who have had a steadily more abnormal view of Catholic marriage. The Church today is no longer in normal times! Has Menzingen not noticed? Or chosen to notice no longer? It took a few centuries for Protestantism to break the universal grip of the Catholic Church. It took a few centuries more for liberalism to work its way upwards inside the Church’s hierarchy, but once God allowed, as a just punishment, the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI to prevail, then the highest Catholic authority became liberal, and ever since then never has it been easier for all Catholics under authority t o convince themselves, even sincerely, that they are remaining Catholic even while they are destroying the Church.
When in 1987 Archbishop Lefebvre called the Conciliar churchmen “antichrists” (Letter to four future bishops), he was by-passing their possible subjective sincerity and keeping a firm grip on their certain objective destructiveness. When in 2017 Menzingen highlights the normalcy of hierarchical Superiors’ involvement in Catholic marriages, it is taking for granted the hierarchs’ sincerity and by-passing their ruinous liberalism. But liberals they remain, with a concept of marriage that includes easy annulments, and so on. If once they get their foot in the door of Traditional marriages, what stops them tomorrow or the day after from applying even the Church’s Traditional law in accordance with their “renewed” idea of marriage? In fact, how can they not, tomorrow or the day after, apply their own sincere convictions?
For tens of years s ince Vatican II, according as Catholics have realized what was happening to the Church and become “Traditionalists,” so they have put a distance between themselves and the Church’s official authorities. Without necessarily lacking in courtesy or respect, they have moved away in order to protect their Catholic Faith and morals. Now comes Menzingen moving towards these authorities and wanting all Traditionalists to follow! Menzingen has forgotten the famous quote from Virgil’s Aeneid: “Whatever it be, I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts.” Menzingen trusts the Greeks!
Kyrie eleison.

Number DXXII (522)

July 15, 2017

Menzingen’s Mistake – II
Rome says, the Church’s crisis is not such.
Now Menzingen is likewise out of touch.
The problem of the June 13 letter from Society of St Pius X headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland, meant to “set the record straight on marriages” after Rome’s April 4 proposal to facilitate the integration of Society marriages into the Conciliar structure, is no small problem of merely this or that argument or this or that detail. The problem is the total Conciliar mentality of the churchmen making the proposal. In the immortal words of one of the three Society theologians who, led by Bishop de Galarreta, stood up to four Roman “theologians” in the “Theological Discussions” of 2009 to 2011, the four Romans were “mentally sick but they have the authority.” Such is the Romans’ (objective) “mental sickness” that many a believing Catholic is tempted to conclude that they have lost all Church authority. Alas, they still at least appear to have it, so that in the name of “obedience” they are objectively destroying the Church, whatever may be – God knows – their subjective good intentions.
Thus the first major part of Menzingen’s Letter on Marriages (see last week’s “Comments”) argued that Rome’s April 4 proposal was merely to bring Society marriages back into line with the Church’s ancient and reasonable practice since the Council of Trent. Yes, Menzingen, but what is reasonable law worth when it is to be applied by “mentally sick” administrators? A profound scholastic axiom says, “Whatever is received is received in the manner of the receiver.” Sane Tradition in the hands of (objectively) insane churchmen is liable to become insane. For instance in the third part of the Letter Menzingen claims that to officialise Society marriages will make them more secure. Secure, did you say? When today’s Church officials are virtually turning official annulments into “Catholic divorce”?
The second main part of the Letter set s up eight main objections to Rome’s proposal in order to refute them. The essence of most of the objections is that, in context, to accept Rome’s proposal means going along with the Conciliar betrayal of the Faith: with the Conciliar theory and practice of marriage (1,2), with the Conciliar condemnation of previous SSPX marriages (3), with the new Code of Canon Law (8), and so on. Menzingen’s answer is that taken merely in itself, abstracting from its context, the Roman proposal is doing no more than to make available to Society couples an extra way of getting married in harmony with the official Church. Yes, Menzingen, but how can a marriage be celebrated in real life without a context? And how can any official Church context be anything today other than Conciliar?
The fifth objection is a classic example of Menzingen’s Cloud Cuckooland reasoning which separates the inseparable: to the objection that Rome’s easing of access to the officialising of S ociety marriages is merely the cheese on a Personal Prelature mousetrap, Menzingen replies that “in itself ” cheese is only cheese! Menzingen even recognises that Rome’s proposal itself mentions that it is a step on the way to the Society’s eventual “institutional regularisation,” in other words that the cheese is, objectively, part of a trap. Menzingen’s answer is that to avoid all such traps, the Society would have to cut all contacts with Roman officials, which Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1975 that he would never do.
Yes, Menzingen, but that was before another 13 years of contacts and negotiations with the Romans finally proved to the Archbishop that they had no real intention of looking after Tradition. Then and only then did he consecrate four bishops to look after Tradition (as they did until 2012), but never did he refuse all future contact with the Romans. He only said that henceforth doctrine had to precede diplomacy, so that contact could only be resumed when the Romans returned to the great Papal condemnations of liberalism and modernism. And since 1988? Menzingen pretends that Rome has changed for the better, so that a trap is no longer a trap! Oh, Menzingen! You have caught the Romans’ “mental sickness”!
Kyrie eleison.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2017, 11:26:57 AM »

Quote

that the Catholic Church exists as the one and only sure means of saving souls for eternal Heaven, while the Devil exists as a first-class agent for sending souls to eternal Hell.

We're all looking for a sure means of saving our souls. But does H.E. mean that the Conciliar Church is a sure means? That is more of a rhetorical question than a serious one. Does H.E. mean that the Society is a sure means? How could he, since he tells us that the SSPX is on the verge of extinction. How about the Fraternity, or the various sede expressions, or the "Resistance.," or numerous other independent Catholic works? Do these possess the sure means of salvation? I think, until shown otherwise, that H.E.'s comment in this regard is kinda glib.

JPaul · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2017, 02:41:48 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 08, 2017, 11:26:57 AM

We're all looking for a sure means of saving our souls. But does H.E. mean that the Conciliar Church is a sure means? That is more of a rhetorical question than a serious one. Does H.E. mean that the Society is a sure means? How could he, since he tells us that the SSPX is on the verge of extinction. How about the Fraternity, or the various sede expressions, or the "Resistance.," or numerous other independent Catholic works? Do these possess the sure means of salvation? I think, until shown otherwise, that H.E.'s comment in this regard is kinda glib.

The lack of specificity of his intent renders the statement meaningless, but He is always reluctant to advert to the irreducible difference between the True Church and the false Church.
One must always note the disparity, lest the Faithful are led to believe that they are one and the same Church.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2017, 04:45:02 PM »

Quote

JPaul: The lack of specificity of (Williamson's) intent renders the statement meaningless, but He is always reluctant to advert to the irreducible difference between the True Church and the false Church.
One must always note the disparity, lest the Faithful are led to believe that they are one and the same Church.

ABL, most of time, with a brief lapse in 1988, made the faithful pretty clear about true and false Church. The quote below is pretty emblematic of many similar statements ABL made over the years:

Quote

How can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is, there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the Catholic Church. A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.

+Fellay would not be caught dead saying this. And I have to wonder whether H.E. would echo quite as forcefully the words of the Founder. Would +W call the Conciliar church a false church? Would he today affirm that it is not the Catholic Church. I'm not sure frankly.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2017, 05:03:23 PM »

I remember +W teaching us that line from the Aeneid in Literature class during 0 year (Humanities): "Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes"

Incredulous · « **Reply #5 on:** July 09, 2017, 10:55:29 AM »

And the sweet poison of Vatican II yielded the death of billions of more souls than did Troy.

JPaul · « **Reply #6 on:** July 09, 2017, 02:25:14 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 08, 2017, 04:45:02 PM

ABL, most of time, with a brief lapse in 1988, made the faithful pretty clear about true and false Church. The quote below is pretty emblematic of many similar statements ABL made over the years:

+Fellay would not be caught dead saying this. And I have to wonder whether H.E. would echo quite as forcefully the words of the Founder. Would +W call the Conciliar church a false church? Would he today affirm that it is not the Catholic Church. I'm not sure frankly.

Well, he has said more than once that they are the same apple with the conciliar sect being the rotten portion.
It certainly sounds as though he considers them as one entity. That is a dangerous idea which is pregnant with theological contradictions.

Wessex · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2017, 01:57:52 PM »

One would think that going out on a limb and distancing oneself from the corrupt Vatican and its usurpation of a once-flourishing church, traditionalists would be so happy and relieved to be out of its clutches. Yet, the SSPX and to some extent Bp. Williamson still want in on the unholy mess and not stand aside from its inevitable fate. Perhaps it is because they feel they derive some authority maintaining a lifeline with an institution even in decline when others claim that authority outside it however irregular that may appear. This question of authority clearly troubles those whose religion is based on legal docuмents and showy displays when we all know how fake and artificial these things can be. The bishop still refuses to leave the Titanic and cannot imagine existing without it.

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2017, 07:30:46 PM »

Quote

Wessex,
This question of authority clearly troubles those whose religion is based on legal docuмents and showy displays when we all know how fake and artificial these things can be. The bishop still refuses to leave the Titanic and cannot imagine existing without it.

If these SSPX fellows truly believed in the concept of supplied juristiction and the proposed powers which they hold based upon the so called "state of emergency" then they would not obsess over proving their allegiance to a non-Catholic sect, and if the Bishop believes that the rotten fruit is one and the same with the true Church and which holds the authority of the True Church then He must obey and submit to it in fact not hypothetically.
Submission to the Catholic pope includes to his doctrine and his liturgical practices. With a true pope, such things are not optional. You cannot bypass him to "do your own thing", when it suits you.

Bishop W has not yet left the failed SSPX, and does not appear to want separation from the conciliar entity either.

The saving Religion is, as you say, far distant from the simple legalisms which are called upon to defend and excuse this living in contradiction.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** July 15, 2017, 08:24:42 AM »

Number DXXII (522)

July 15, 2017

Menzingen’s Mistake – II
Rome says, the Church’s crisis is not such.
Now Menzingen is likewise out of touch.
The problem of the June 13 letter from Society of St Pius X headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland, meant to “set the record straight on marriages” after Rome’s April 4 proposal to facilitate the integration of Society marriages into the Conciliar structure, is no small problem of merely this or that argument or this or that detail. The problem is the total Conciliar mentality of the churchmen making the proposal. In the immortal words of one of the three Society theologians who, led by Bishop de Galarreta, stood up to four Roman “theologians” in the “Theological Discussions” of 2009 to 2011, the four Romans were “mentally sick but they have the authority.” Such is the Romans’ (objective) “mental sickness” that many a believing Catholic is tempted to conclude that they have lost all Church authority. Alas, they still at least appear to have it, so that in the name of “obedience” they are objectively destroying the Church, whatever may be – God knows – their subjective good intentions.
Thus the first major part of Menzingen’s Letter on Marriages (see last week’s “Comments”) argued that Rome’s April 4 proposal was merely to bring Society marriages back into line with the Church’s ancient and reasonable practice since the Council of Trent. Yes, Menzingen, but what is reasonable law worth when it is to be applied by “mentally sick” administrators? A profound scholastic axiom says, “Whatever is received is received in the manner of the receiver.” Sane Tradition in the hands of (objectively) insane churchmen is liable to become insane. For instance in the third part of the Letter Menzingen claims that to officialise Society marriages will make them more secure. Secure, did you say? When today’s Church officials are virtually turning official annulments into “Catholic divorce”?
The second main part of the Letter set s up eight main objections to Rome’s proposal in order to refute them. The essence of most of the objections is that, in context, to accept Rome’s proposal means going along with the Conciliar betrayal of the Faith: with the Conciliar theory and practice of marriage (1,2), with the Conciliar condemnation of previous SSPX marriages (3), with the new Code of Canon Law (8), and so on. Menzingen’s answer is that taken merely in itself, abstracting from its context, the Roman proposal is doing no more than to make available to Society couples an extra way of getting married in harmony with the official Church. Yes, Menzingen, but how can a marriage be celebrated in real life without a context? And how can any official Church context be anything today other than Conciliar?
The fifth objection is a classic example of Menzingen’s Cloud Cuckooland reasoning which separates the inseparable: to the objection that Rome’s easing of access to the officialising of S ociety marriages is merely the cheese on a Personal Prelature mousetrap, Menzingen replies that “in itself ” cheese is only cheese! Menzingen even recognises that Rome’s proposal itself mentions that it is a step on the way to the Society’s eventual “institutional regularisation,” in other words that the cheese is, objectively, part of a trap. Menzingen’s answer is that to avoid all such traps, the Society would have to cut all contacts with Roman officials, which Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1975 that he would never do.
Yes, Menzingen, but that was before another 13 years of contacts and negotiations with the Romans finally proved to the Archbishop that they had no real intention of looking after Tradition. Then and only then did he consecrate four bishops to look after Tradition (as they did until 2012), but never did he refuse all future contact with the Romans. He only said that henceforth doctrine had to precede diplomacy, so that contact could only be resumed when the Romans returned to the great Papal condemnations of liberalism and modernism. And since 1988? Menzingen pretends that Rome has changed for the better, so that a trap is no longer a trap! Oh, Menzingen! You have caught the Romans’ “mental sickness”!
Kyrie eleison.

klasG4e · « **Reply #10 on:** July 15, 2017, 11:27:10 AM »

Quote from: Wessex on July 11, 2017, 01:57:52 PM

The bishop still refuses to leave the Titanic and cannot imagine existing without it.

Seemingly as well as the sunken Valtorta and Garabandal.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #11 on:** July 15, 2017, 03:05:18 PM »

Quote

Seemingly as well as the sunken Valtorta and Garabandal.

I don't know much about Garabandal, but believe quite strongly in Valtorta's writings I think the woman was inspired and had quite a bit of personal integrity, as well. That is a lot more than can be said for the Menzingen monstrosity and fallen New Order.

klasG4e · « **Reply #12 on:** July 15, 2017, 03:50:46 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on July 15, 2017, 03:05:18 PM

Valtorta's writings I think the woman was inspired

No doubt she was.

klasG4e · « **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2017, 03:59:49 PM »

Just as I'm sure the children of Garabandal were inspired as they ran up hills backwards.

JPaul · « **Reply #14 on:** July 15, 2017, 04:01:52 PM »

Reducing the apostasy of the conciliar church and the so called crisis within the Catholic Church to what is termed, a "mental sickness" is at best, a misnomer and a highly inaccurate. It is a term which assigns no responsibility to those who have willfully departed from the Truth,and the Religion.

Catching the conciliar cold does not change heretics and apostates into hapless victims of a liberal pathogen any more than the practicing Sodomite is an innocent victim of AIDS.

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521) (Read 2676 times)

Matthew

Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

hollingsworth

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

JPaul

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

hollingsworth

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

Matthew

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

Incredulous

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

JPaul

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

Wessex

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

JPaul

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

Matthew

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

klasG4e

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

hollingsworth

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

klasG4e

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

klasG4e

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)

JPaul

Re: Eleison Comments - Menzingen’s Mistake (no. 521)