Author Topic: There Is No Red Light (Read 9058 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** March 16, 2013, 06:43:20 AM »

All these arguments about why resistance members must leave their perfectly orthodox chapels are ridiculous, strained, and contrived.

Fr Pfeiffer, et al, try to pretend there has been some formal mission statement enacted which disqualifies our attendance in SSPX chapels.

There is not.

Instead, there is a scandalous doctrinal preamble THAT WAS REJECTED.

The preamble is not SSPX policy (thank heavens)!

Certainly Bishop Fellay was willing to sell out, but the plot was foiled (for the time being).

More than this, the resistance WITHIN the SSPX is building, as witnessed by the letter of the 37 French District priests, so the idea that the SSPX is too far gone to save doesn't hold water either.

OFFICIALLY THE SSPX IS THE SAME AS IT EVER WAS.

It is only UNOFICIALLY that it has liberalized.

People who are taking my position and strategy like Matthew for one; not that he got it from me (fight from within; support resistance priests when they come around), are making a difference and rolling back Menzingen's plans.

But to contrive arguments to support an SSPX-wide red light to build your own resistance support base harms souls more than it helps them.

When there actually is some SSPX sellout as official policy (I.e., an accepted deal instead of a failed one), the red light will go up.

For now, everything depends on local conditions.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2013, 06:50:52 AM »

I will try to pre-empt references to the 2012 General Chapter Declaration or the attached 6 Conditions as examples of official SSPX policy reasons we cannot attend any SSPX chapels:

1) This came out 9 months ago, and no resistance clergy made the claim based on these since;

2) These acts refer to future contingencies (ie., They prep the way for a future sellout rather than consummate one presently);

3) They are the cause, along with the preamble, of a growing revolt from within, which would not have materialized had we all bailed because of an unjustified SSPX-wide red light.

Just one man's opinion.

Feel free to have at it.

I will not respond to any posts in this thread unless specifically asked to.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2013, 07:20:05 AM »

"But to contrive arguments to support an SSPX-wide red light to build your own resistance support base harms souls more than it helps them."

Ps: This reference is to my fellow local resistance leaders, not Fr Pfeiffer.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2013, 08:23:43 AM »

Seraphim,

I do not fully agree with you, mainly in that you claim that Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble is the not the official stance of the SSPX towards Vatican II. The fact that Rome rejected it does not mean anything - any more than the acceptance or rejection of Rome towards a change in the SSPX's Constitution. The Doctrinal Preamble is the mindset of the SSPX leadership, and they are going to defend it in the next issue of Cor Unum as announced by Fr. Thouvenot himself.

After thinking and praying on this more, I believe that now is the time that priests need to publicly take a stance one way or another. This is no longer a matter of "prudence" as Fr. Rostand would say; this is now a matter of doctrine. We need to challenge our priests. Show them the Bishop Fellay's Preamble. Given them time to study it. Then finally ask for whether they accept it or not. If they accept it, you need to leave your chapel. If they reject it, then they need to take a public stance against it. If those who reject it refuse to speak out against it, then they become no better than those priests who remained silent after Vatican II. As a matter of fact, they are worse because the SSPX priests should know better than the priests at the time of Vatican II. After that, continued attendance at a SSPX chapel run by a priest who rejects the Preamble but refuses to speak out may be interpreted as an act of agreement on your part to the Doctrinal Preamble and to the way your priest is handling the situation. In essence, there would be no substantial difference between your assistance at an SSPX or FSSP Mass.

If the priests decides that he needs to speak out, then be prepared to support him materially.

Ethelred · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2013, 08:53:07 AM »

Well, so far we've got a yellow light according to Bishop Williamson's recent EC with the same title.

But as Faber underlined, this means the amber light will at any rate turn red in the near future. And that's the whole point.

So the difference between Bishop Williamson's position (yellow light) and Fr. Pfeiffer's (red light) is the rating of the duration of that certain period of time, but no difference in principle.

The crux of the matter is that nothing will hold back Bp Fellay from trying to re-unite with the official Church.
If a Newpope's rejection of the preamble (Benedict XVI) or a super-modernistic Newpope (Francis) holds back Bp Fellay's feet, it will not hold back his heart, or the hearts of his junta. They are liberals, making war on reality.

Jerome · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2013, 09:58:38 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Seraphim,

The Doctrinal Preamble is the mindset of the SSPX leadership, and they are going to defend it in the next issue of Cor Unum as announced by Fr. Thouvenot himself.

If the priests decides that he needs to speak out, then be prepared to support him materially.

This is the whole crux of the matter. We can put whatever shades of light we want to interpret the situation is and even look through pretty pink glasses, but it doesn't change the spirit, mindset, & agenda of the neo-SSPX.

It's either fighting for the whole Truth, nothing but the Truth in defending the Traditional Catholic Faith or not.
Anything else is a compromise, deviation, and deception of the Truth.

It's either your with God, or you're against Him.

Sigismund · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2013, 10:03:52 AM »

Quote from: Seraphim

All these arguments about why resistance members must leave their perfectly orthodox chapels are ridiculous, strained, and contrived.

Fr Pfeiffer, et al, try to pretend there has been some formal mission statement enacted which disqualifies our attendance in SSPX chapels.

There is not.

Instead, there is a scandalous doctrinal preamble THAT WAS REJECTED.

The preamble is not SSPX policy (thank heavens)!

Certainly Bishop Fellay was willing to sell out, but the plot was foiled (for the time being).

More than this, the resistance WITHIN the SSPX is building, as witnessed by the letter of the 37 French District priests, so the idea that the SSPX is too far gone to save doesn't hold water either.

OFFICIALLY THE SSPX IS THE SAME AS IT EVER WAS.

It is only UNOFICIALLY that it has liberalized.

People who are taking my position and strategy like Matthew for one; not that he got it from me (fight from within; support resistance priests when they come around), are making a difference and rolling back Menzingen's plans.

But to contrive arguments to support an SSPX-wide red light to build your own resistance support base harms souls more than it helps them.

When there actually is some SSPX sellout as official policy (I.e., an accepted deal instead of a failed one), the red light will go up.

For now, everything depends on local conditions.

And even if Fr. Pfeiffer dit say that, he has nothing approximating jurisdiction, so it is not binding on anyone.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2013, 11:02:11 AM »

EM:

Quote

The Doctrinal Preamble is the mindset of the SSPX leadership, and they are going to defend it in the next issue of Cor Unum as announced by Fr. Thouvenot himself.

Yes, most certainly it is. The DP is basically the Protocol of Accord which the Archbishop signed in 1988 and quickly rengeged upon. Almost all the major provisions of the 2012 Preamble are simply resurrected from the 1988 Accord. Do a simple comparison of the two docuмents. In several articles of the Preamble, even the wording is the same.

Militia Jesu · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2013, 12:07:04 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

There Is No Red Light , Preamble Never Enacted

(...)

For now, everything depends on local conditions.

:thinking: :confused1: :idea: :stare:

Militia Jesu · « **Reply #9 on:** March 16, 2013, 12:07:42 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

"But to contrive arguments to support an SSPX-wide red light to build your own resistance support base harms souls more than it helps them."

Ps: This reference is to my fellow local resistance leaders, not Fr Pfeiffer.

So, you have problems with your local "red lighters" and therefore the "yellow light" has to be the norm and the wise decision eh?

Well... at least now we know why you're so obsessed with this whole "red and yellow" light.

Attack me all you want but here's my advice for you: "Drop the personal problems and attain to the doctrinal ones!"

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2013, 12:08:31 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Yes, most certainly it is. The DP is basically the Protocol of Accord which the Archbishop signed in 1988 and quickly rengeged upon. Almost all the major provisions of the 2012 Preamble are simply resurrected from the 1988 Accord. Do a simple comparison of the two docuмents. In several articles of the Preamble, even the wording is the same.

The doctrinal preamble goes beyond it.

It doesn't follow that all the priests are on board with the doctrinal preamble or that they won't resist in the future.

The SSPX priests shouldn't be regarded as being subject to Bishop Fellay as though he were really an ordinary with legitimate authority.

Matto · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2013, 12:09:40 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

The SSPX priests shouldn't be regarded as being subject to Bishop Fellay as though he were really an ordinary with legitimate authority.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #12 on:** March 16, 2013, 12:22:37 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

The SSPX priests shouldn't be regarded as being subject to Bishop Fellay as though he were really an ordinary with legitimate authority.

What matters is that the priests consider themselves subject to him.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2013, 01:42:48 PM »

Quote from: Militia Jesu

Quote from: Seraphim
"But to contrive arguments to support an SSPX-wide red light to build your own resistance support base harms souls more than it helps them."

Ps: This reference is to my fellow local resistance leaders, not Fr Pfeiffer.

So, you have problems with your local "red lighters" and therefore the "yellow light" has to be the norm and the wise decision eh?

Well... at least now we know why you're so obsessed with this whole "red and yellow" light.

Attack me all you want but here's my advice for you: "Drop the personal problems and attain to the doctrinal ones!"

Are you in high school yet?

I love watching you create your own straw man, knock it down, and claim victory.

We don't have a single red lighter in my resistance group.

The reference to my fellow resistance leaders was a reference to leaders around the country, not in my location.

How you like me now?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #14 on:** March 16, 2013, 01:46:31 PM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Seraphim,

I do not fully agree with you, mainly in that you claim that Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble is the not the official stance of the SSPX towards Vatican II. The fact that Rome rejected it does not mean anything - any more than the acceptance or rejection of Rome towards a change in the SSPX's Constitution. The Doctrinal Preamble is the mindset of the SSPX leadership, and they are going to defend it in the next issue of Cor Unum as announced by Fr. Thouvenot himself.

After thinking and praying on this more, I believe that now is the time that priests need to publicly take a stance one way or another. This is no longer a matter of "prudence" as Fr. Rostand would say; this is now a matter of doctrine. We need to challenge our priests. Show them the Bishop Fellay's Preamble. Given them time to study it. Then finally ask for whether they accept it or not. If they accept it, you need to leave your chapel. If they reject it, then they need to take a public stance against it. If those who reject it refuse to speak out against it, then they become no better than those priests who remained silent after Vatican II. As a matter of fact, they are worse because the SSPX priests should know better than the priests at the time of Vatican II. After that, continued attendance at a SSPX chapel run by a priest who rejects the Preamble but refuses to speak out may be interpreted as an act of agreement on your part to the Doctrinal Preamble and to the way your priest is handling the situation. In essence, there would be no substantial difference between your assistance at an SSPX or FSSP Mass.

If the priests decides that he needs to speak out, then be prepared to support him materially.

If you think I am wrong to claim the scandalous preamble is not official SSPX policy, you should have no problem quoting it as such.

Could you produce that for me please?