Author Topic: The Lifeboat is not the Ship (Read 8912 times)

Matthew · « **on:** October 15, 2013, 04:14:22 PM »

Quote from: Johnnier

Matthew,

Matthew, as far as I am concern, the main lie of the resistance is to claim that their battle with the Superiors of the SSPX is to be equated with Archbishop Lefebvre’s battle with the modernists in Rome. This is absurd to say the least.

If you or anyone feels that going to an SSPX chapel is a threat to their faith, then what are they doing going there?

As one priest recently explained to me, the Archbishop himself never jumped the gun. He never said, I should do this because Rome may institute a new Mass, Rome may have a Vatican II. He reacted post factum to a real issue at hand. Anything else is insane. Should you say to your children, - feel free to leave home now, because your parents may possibly one day betray you? You wouldn’t allow that liberalism into your home on a natural level, why would you allow it into your home on the level of the faith.

Your error is this:

The SSPX is not the Church. The proportion is different.

I would not evacuate a cruise ship because of a 1 gallon per hour leak. But I'd sure as heck abandon a LIFEBOAT which was taking on the same amount of water.

The SSPX is only a lifeboat. It is supposed to be standing up for Tradition, and fighting Modernism and Vatican II (but I repeat myself).

It doesn't require a Novus Ordo Mass, or any of the elements of the Novus Ordo to be introduced (versus populum, vernacular, altar girls, communion in the hand, etc.) to justify the same response of REJECTION.

If the SSPX were the Church, then you'd be correct. But it's not the Church; just a part of it. You also presume that +Fellay is the pope -- if not explicitly, then implicitly. You think that premature "breaking" with the SSPX and/or "His Holiness" Bishop Fellay is tantamount to schism. Not true.

I can break with the SSPX because I don't like the brand of vestments used. They are a pious union with no claim on my loyalty or support. They have no jurisdiction. Any jurisdiction or justification they have for their activities (chapels, seminaries, etc.) comes from SUPPLIED jurisdiction. Now they USED to merit both my loyalty AND my support when I perceived them as the champions of Tradition.

But when I perceive the spirit of compromise, looking for acceptance from the World, trying to accept as much of Vatican II as possible, looking for a practical agreement, etc. from this same SSPX, I (and countless others) have a very real, legitimate problem with that.

Azul · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2013, 05:21:48 PM »

Come, come, Matthew, this "lifeboat" as you aptly refer to the SSPX, will save spiritual lives. If there was a hole in it, as there seemed to be, it is being patched as we speak. There is no resemblance between the SSPX and the novus ordo that I attended back in the late 70's for a few months. No resemblance at all. At some point I have to wonder if the ultimate purpose of the "resistance" is to separate people from the Mass? Because that is certainly the practical effect it is having.

Watchdogs are good, I have one myself. The only problem with watch dogs is that sometimes, they get so worked up that they can't stop barking, even when a danger is passed.

Let's pray for the SSPX and have confidence that if and when a real danger comes round again, we will know it. We may be deprived very soon of any true Mass, so let's take advantage of it while we may. And once again, I have to sound the alarm that those of you with young children are doing them a disservice dragging them around from traditional chapel to chapel. It is confusing to them and they will very quickly pick up on the fact that they can pick and choose. And they will. You may think you have little angels and they may be very good, but when they are teenagers and young adults, you will see what damage has been done. I believe that too much confusion leads to indifference.

Ekim · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2013, 05:35:46 PM »

Just as the Archbishop acted after the fact, as you correctly point out. So did the Resistance priests act AFTER +Fellay compromised with modernist Rome via the DOCTRINAL Declaration and the six conditions of the general chapter. Previously +Fellay would say Vatican II was a poisoned soup...the entire pot must be thrown out. Now he says 95% is unacceptable. The Archbishop always taught that the New Mass was valid but illegitimate. It was because it was illegitimate that we were not legally obliged to participate. +Fellay now says that the New Mass IS legitimate. If it is valid and now legitimate then we are morally obliged to participate. +Fellay as Bishop can not disobey the Supreme Pontiff when he is given a valid and legitimate order I.e. Celebrate the New Mass. To do so would most definitely be a TRUE act of schism.

So, with that said, if the Archbishop was correct, and the New Mass is illegitimate, then we are all defenders of the faith. If +Fellay is correct and the New Mass is legitimate, then we are all rebels and schismatics.

The priest's of the Resistance are refusing this new orientation of +Fellay rather choosing to hold fast to the teaching of their holy founder.

Ekim · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM »

Oooops, meant to say +Fellay now says Vatican II is 95% acceptable.

Johnnier · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2013, 06:18:02 PM »

Matthew,

That is the very error of the resistance. They hang on each word of Bp. Fellay as though he were the sovereign Pontiff and somehow each statement is a binding dogmatic fact that must be embraced by all members of the SSPX and the faithful.

Now the same resistance have transferred that to Fr. Pfieffer and the resistance clergy, as though what they say has some sort of binding authority. . . Fr. Pfieffer or Fr. X says you shouldn't attend SSPX masses,. .. etc.

As to compromise, hmm. . . what compromise? Perhaps the same compromise of the Archbishop, to discuss things with his lawful superiors? To express his concerns and try to come to a resolution that will work for the good of the Church as a whole.

Matthew, - one can't justify rejecting his lawful superiors without sufficient grounds for doing so - that is always true. The resistance clergy have no grounds upon to justify their position. Logically their position leads to anarchy. It is the same position of the liberals and modernists - each man is free to do as he pleases - casting off the yoke of all authority. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Position of the resistance is to try to reject one error (Vatican II etc) with another error, without make the necessary distinctions. They fail at times even to make some of the most basic of distinctions.

As for Vatican II, the SSPX has always made clear it's position and it is still on the SSPX site:

http://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-should-catholics-think-vatican-ii-1988

As for grasping what is acceptable in Vatican II and what is not an interesting article I came across not long ago on this point is the following:

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350219?eng=y

Food for thought any how.

Ekim · « **Reply #5 on:** October 15, 2013, 09:24:46 PM »

So Johnnisr, the question remains, are you in the Archbishops camp saying the New Mass is illegitimate? Or are you in the +Fellay camp that says the New Mass is legitimate?

+Fellay signed and delivered a docuмent to Rome that stated that the SSPX recognises the New Mass as legitimate. He took careful measure to be sure this word "legitimate " was added to the original text of the Archbishop. So this one word carried a lot of weight. If it was that serious for +Fellay to add it, then it is just as serious that we tame note and respond accordingly. One word DOES make a difference!

WHAT SAY YOU?

Johnnier · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2013, 10:39:17 PM »

Same old lies. I think these points have been answered many times over. The whole thing is that the resistance fail to make the basic distinction in this regard. How is the word 'Legitimas' to be seen. Even the Vatican has admitted recently that this requires a clarification.

Even the Archbishop was willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo Missae as promulgated by the Conciliar authorities, but for all that he didn't view it to be binding, for he held that it violated the Church's concept of a Catholic liturgy. Contrary to what the Sede's want to think, the Archbishop held that the Pope put forward a bad liturgy that wasn't binding upon Catholics. The SSPX's position on the New Mass remains the same and that is clear from looking at all that is posted on any of their official websites.

The SSPX continues to view the New Mass as a violation of Church law - hence not binding on Catholics. If it was binding upon us the SSPX would have stated that it is obliged to embrace the Novus Ordo Missae. That isn't the case, hence you have no case.

'We declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II'. - Archbishop Lefebvre, May 5th, 1988.

Machabees · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2013, 11:09:16 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

So Johnnisr, the question remains, are you in the Archbishops camp saying the New Mass is illegitimate? Or are you in the +Fellay camp that says the New Mass is legitimate?

+Fellay signed and delivered a docuмent to Rome that stated that the SSPX recognises the New Mass as legitimate. He took careful measure to be sure this word "legitimate " was added to the original text of the Archbishop. So this one word carried a lot of weight. If it was that serious for +Fellay to add it, then it is just as serious that we tame note and respond accordingly. One word DOES make a difference!

WHAT SAY YOU?

Quote from: Johnnier

Same old lies. I think these points have been answered many times over. The whole thing is that the resistance fail to make the basic distinction in this regard. How is the word 'Legitimas' to be seen. Even the Vatican has admitted recently that this requires a clarification.

Even the Archbishop was willing to acknowledge the Novus Ordo Missae as promulgated by the Conciliar authorities, but for all that he didn't view it to be binding, for he held that it violated the Church's concept of a Catholic liturgy. Contrary to what the Sede's want to think, the Archbishop held that the Pope put forward a bad liturgy that wasn't binding upon Catholics. The SSPX's position on the New Mass remains the same and that is clear from looking at all that is posted on any of their official websites.

The SSPX continues to view the New Mass as a violation of Church law - hence not binding on Catholics. If it was binding upon us the SSPX would have stated that it is obliged to embrace the Novus Ordo Missae. That isn't the case, hence you have no case.

'We declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II'. - Archbishop Lefebvre, May 5th, 1988.

Johnnier,

Ekim did ask you a fair question of what do YOU think and accept; you have not answered it.

Certainly, to have an honest discussion, especially on something so important, it does merit your response to this.

If you agree with the entirety of what Bishop Fellay says, then you have to concede that you agree with him on his stated contents within his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Docuмent, also of Bishop Fellay's stated contents within his return April 14, 2012 letter to the other 3-SSPX Bishops, and Bishop Fellay's stated contents within his 2012 SSPX General Chapter's Docuмent with the 6-conditions.

A second question for you is:

Do you, or do you not, agree with and consent with Bishop Fellay's stated contents within these 3-main Docuмents?

Johnnier · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2013, 11:58:47 PM »

Mac,

Perhaps you didn't grasp my point. I answered his question. What Bp. Fellay has put down requires one understand the points that he has made in their proper context.

To say that the New Mass is legitimate requires clarification. The Vatican itself had to make a clarification on the point.

- Bp. Fellay is saying it is legitimate in the same sense that the Archbishop implicitly did in his may 5th statement, namely that it was legitimately promulgated by the supreme authority in the Church, nothing more. The fact that a law may be legitimately promulgated by a supreme authority doesn't make the law itself legitimate or binding, for it must be promulgated for the common good and not be against the Divine law. Prior to this whole hype of the resistance no one would have made an issue of this obvious point.

The Resistance want to read into Bp. Fellay's words anything only what they want in order to somehow try to justify their false position. I think this is becoming more and more obvious.

What is more, once again, it is the resistance who wants to give Pontifical status to Bp. Fellay. - As though, based upon his statements the SSPX falls or stands - Please this is ridiculous to say the least.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2013, 12:05:52 AM »

So, what you're saying is, it depends on what the meaning of the word "legitimate" is.
You're in some not-so-good company there, I hate to say...

Bill Clinton:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
"I didn't inhale"

Now Johnnier steps in and clarifies, "Oh, but +Fellay just meant it was promulgated by legitimate authorities, nothing more!".

So what you're saying is, we should be rising up against +Fellay because he has totally succuмbed to the doublespeak and ambiguity of Vatican II?

If he starts sounding like a Vatican II docuмent, that's enough reason to start a Resistance right there!

According to Fr. Pfeiffer, they were taught in the Seminary that the New Mass was IL-legitimate, bastard (latin: spure) in every possible way.

Now they're apparently teaching something different.

Machabees · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2013, 12:29:28 AM »

Quote from: Johnnier

Mac,

Perhaps you didn't grasp my point. I answered his question. What Bp. Fellay has put down requires one understand the points that he has made in their proper context.

To say that the New Mass is legitimate requires clarification. The Vatican itself had to make a clarification on the point.

- Bp. Fellay is saying it is legitimate in the same sense that the Archbishop implicitly did in his may 5th statement, namely that it was legitimately promulgated by the supreme authority in the Church, nothing more. The fact that a law may be legitimately promulgated by a supreme authority doesn't make the law itself legitimate or binding, for it must be promulgated for the common good and not be against the Divine law. Prior to this whole hype of the resistance no one would have made an issue of this obvious point.

The Resistance want to read into Bp. Fellay's words anything only what they want in order to somehow try to justify their false position. I think this is becoming more and more obvious.

What is more, once again, it is the resistance who wants to give Pontifical status to Bp. Fellay. - As though, based upon his statements the SSPX falls or stands - Please this is ridiculous to say the least.

Johnnier, I see how you dodged Ekim's question; you have not answered my question.

One point at a time...before you keep distracting and generalizing it into something else.

You want us to think you are sincere, please answer my specific question.

Thank you.

Johnnier · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2013, 02:28:18 AM »

Matthew,

No, you are not correct here. Let me explain, recently a person wrote to the Vatican for a clearer explination of this issue of legitimas as set forth in the Moto Proprio of Benedict XVI regarding the Mass.

Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei

Prot. 156/2009

Vatican City, 23 May 2012

Your Excellency,

This Pontifical Commission has received, via your Excellency’s good offices, a copy of a correspondence from [name blacked out] placing before the Commission two dubia as to the interpretation of article 19 of this Commission’s Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.

The first [dubium] asked whether legitimas in UE, article 19, is to be understood as meaning:

(a) Duly promulgated by appropriate procedures of ecclesiastical law (ius ecclesiasticuм); or

(b) In accord with both ecclesiastical law and divine law (ius divinum), that is, neither doctrinally unorthodox nor otherwise displeasing to God.

This Pontifical Commission would limit itself to saying that legitimas is to be understood in the sense of 1(a).

Sincerely yours in Christ

Mons. Guido Pozzo –

In otherwords, it does require a distinction which even the Vatican can understand.

What is more, is that if the resistance wants to be consistent it also has to condemn the Archbishop for saying as 'We declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II'.

Was he by that saying that he accepted the New Mass as thus binding and must be accepted just because it was promulgated by the lawful authority? - Of course not. A distinction needs to be made. Hence my point. The Resistance wants to take things out of context so as to play on the fears of ignorant people, so as to make Bp. Fellay to be saying something he clearly isn't so as to further the agenda at all costs.

Johnnier · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2013, 02:42:26 AM »

Mac,

I hope that answer your question about the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and what sense it is to be understood by the SSPX and the Superior General. '

As to your specific question. - For my part no I don't see any heresy in the doctrinal declarations of the Superior General or the SSPX. If you want to point them out to me, I would be glad to discuss them with you.

As for his private letter to his fellow bishops, that was private correspondence. I can respect that fact, even if others can't. If Bp. Williamson or anyone else for that matter wants to write the Superior General a public letter and make it public, well good for him, but if such a person can't respect private correspondence, well, what can I say for such a one?

As a good priest recently pointed out to me, anything other than heresy does not give anyone the right to rebel against his superiors, otherwise we introduce the rule of anarchy into the Church. Never in the history of the Church has the Church praised rebellion when there hasn't been sufficient grounds for. Contrary to this, the Church has always condemn all such rebellions/schisms etc as being contrary to will God and His Church.

Just read the lives of the saints, many a time their superiors were mistaken, and did things to them which were not just and for all that they did not rebel but remain humble and faithful, for unless it is a question against the faith, obedience is called for. - Apply the same logic in your own home. It isn't that difficult.

No one in the resistance would say that they have always agreed with everything that Bp. Williamson has ever written or done, and yet for all that when he was a superior in the SSPX no one would have held that just because someone disagreed with something he has said/written that it is sufficient grounds for rebellion. To me it seems that the resistance isn't able to see beyond the personal dislike for Bp. Fellay, and this becoming clearer in the insulting way they speak about him.

Be it far from anyone to insult clergy in such a way, SSPX or otherwise. The mocking tone in which some here even speak about the Pope is all out of place. He still has a dignity which is far beyond that of any one of us here. You can't embrace the Novus Ordo attitude towards authority, just because you may not agree with them. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2013, 03:00:38 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

So, what you're saying is, it depends on what the meaning of the word "legitimate" is.
You're in some not-so-good company there, I hate to say...

Bill Clinton:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
"I didn't inhale"

Now Johnnier steps in and clarifies, "Oh, but +Fellay just meant it was promulgated by legitimate authorities, nothing more!".

So what you're saying is, we should be rising up against +Fellay because he has totally succuмbed to the doublespeak and ambiguity of Vatican II?

If he starts sounding like a Vatican II docuмent, that's enough reason to start a Resistance right there!

According to Fr. Pfeiffer, they were taught in the Seminary that the New Mass was IL-legitimate, bastard (latin: spure) in every possible way.

Now they're apparently teaching something different.

This whole back and forth can go on forever. It's all a red herring!

Whether it was "legitimate" or not, and what "legitimate" means is
all a MOOT POINT. And it's stupid to dwell on it.

The overriding fact is, the Newmass was NEVER PROMULGATED at all.

So forget "legitimate" and "illegitimate!" It's a never ending circular
argument of nonsense.

ABL made a mistake in thinking that the Newmass was promulgated,
and just about everyone on planet earth made the same mistake,
but for the few "in the know" who deliberately schemed to NOT
promulgate the Newmass and AT THE SAME TIME, publish docuмents
that made it SEEM that they WERE promulgating the Newmass.

It was all smoke and mirrors. If you haven't paid any attention to
the excellent study done by Fr. Paul Kramer on this issue, then
THAT is the reason for your confusion.

Don't buy into the nonsense of Johnnier, who is merely a shill
for the enemy, and having fun deceiving you, just as Paul VI the
Abominable did 43 years ago!

Ekim · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2013, 05:27:58 AM »

A king bakes poisoned cookies. He ships them throughout his kingdom. He then orders all to eat.

Are the cookies, cookies? Yes
Were the cookies shipped (promulgated)? Yes
Can the king order all to eat? No

It was illegitimate for the king to ship poison
Because of this the kings subject are not obliged to eat. No king has the authority to legitimately ship poison to their subjects. This is what the Archbishop taught.

+Fellay however purposely added the word because he wanted to affirm what the Archbishop refused. If this addition was a mistake by +Fellay, hind sight is 20/20, then he must admit this mistake emphatically and publicly retract this word. A public scandal requires a public and official retraction. Until he does this we must take him at his word.

To date, the OFFICIAL policy of the SSPX is that the New Mass is valid and legitimately promulgated. (OUCH!) A clear reversal of the Archbishop.

If Pope Fellay sees that his faithful are scandalized or burdened with missunderstanding why doesn't he release an encyclical (communique) to define and declare the official stance on Vatican II and the New Mass? Such a docuмent signed and sealed with his bishops ring would once and for all eliminate all confusion caused by the recent contradiction and ambiguities of the SSPX / Menzengen.