Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: 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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
Well, so far we've got a yellow light according to Bishop Williamson's recent EC with the same title.
But as Faber underlined (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23547&min=53), 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
EM:
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.
-
There Is No Red Light , Preamble Never Enacted
(...)
For now, everything depends on local conditions.
:thinking: :confused1: :idea: :stare:
-
"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!"
-
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.
-
The SSPX priests shouldn't be regarded as being subject to Bishop Fellay as though he were really an ordinary with legitimate authority.
-
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.
-
"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?
-
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?
-
Well, so far we've got a yellow light according to Bishop Williamson's recent EC with the same title.
But as Faber underlined (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=23547&min=53), 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.
Please explain why yellow light today infallibly means red light tomorrow.
Please be sure to deal with the letter of the 37 (now 41) priests resisting within the French District while doing so.
-
There Is No Red Light , Preamble Never Enacted
(...)
For now, everything depends on local conditions.
:thinking: :confused1: :idea: :stare:
I will be sure to let Bishop Williamson know you think he is wacked when I see him.
-
Please be sure to deal with the letter of the 37 (now 41) priests resisting within the French District while doing so.
I am jealous of France. That's a lot of priests who oppose a deal. I hope more letters come out from the other parts of the world.
-
EM: 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.
Mindset?
I can't go to a mass in the Midwest because of what someone THiNKS in Menzingen?
Despite there being no official policy against the faith?
So if Dom Thomas in Brazil went liberal, all his monks would have to flee, on the basis of what he would LiKE TO DO IN THE FUTURE.....despite being unsuccessful doing it.
Hmm... :facepalm:
-
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.
Oh no, Tele!!!
They are ALL sinning as we speak!
They must all leave today!
They are not permitted to fight!
As soon as someone in Menzingen try's to pull some funny business, it is our grave duty to abandon the SSPX the moment we hear about it, or we are part of the problem!
This makes the 37 (now 41) French SSPX priests the most guilty of all!
Glad I finally get it!
-
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.
No.
What matters is that they are looked to fight until a formal policy against the faith forces them out.
-
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.
I see.
So the 41 French District priests who are fighting Menzingen are against God.
Got it.
:facepalm:
-
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.
This was the point I was going to make.
I agree with most of Seraphim's post, and I actually thumbed him up (for what it's worth), but I disagree with 1 point.
Has the SSPX's official mission statement EVER been rubber-stamped by Rome?
A song comes to mind:
(To the tune of, "What's love got to do with it")
What's Rome got to do
got to do with it?
What's Rome but a modernist implosion
What's Rome got to do
got to do with it?
Who needs approval when their faith is broken?
Seriously, though, the SSPX mission statement has nothing to do with what Rome has on their books. Did they approve our mission statement for the past 40 years? But that was our mission statement nonetheless.
And Bishop Fellay DID approve of that Doctrinal Preamble. Rome didn't sign it and give the SSPX a personal prelature, but that doesn't change the fact that +Fellay approved of that text. He did not reject it -- ever.
-
I believe the neo-SSPX is controlled by Freemasons.
However, conditions in a local parish might be acceptable.
In the long term though, the neo-SSPX is a sinking ship, commanded by servants of the Lodge.
-
The disagreement between Seraphim and others comes down to this:
Is +Fellay's approved Doctrinal Preamble, which was never ratified into the official SSPX position, the official position of the SSPX today?
Can +Fellay, with the change of his own mind or the flick of a pen, change what the SSPX officially stands for?
Or does he at least have to make the sea change official before it's officially the SSPX position?
When is it "official enough" to cause priests and laity to be required to speak out, leave, etc.?
That is the 10 million dollar question, and the heart of the matter for all these "Red light vs. Yellow light" threads.
-
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?
The evidence is that Bishop Fellay submitted this to Rome in April 2012 as the doctrinal basis for a canonical regularization.
The evidence is that he never retracted it.
The evidence is that Fr. Thouvenot said it was going to be published in March 2013 Edition of Cor Unum.
The evidence is that it will be defended with backup docuмentation in the same edition of Cor Unum.
Of course, Bishop Fellay et al will say that it is line with the Archbishop's position, but we all know that that defence is a bunch of crock!
-
So if Dom Thomas in Brazil went liberal, all his monks would have to flee, on the basis of what he would LiKE TO DO IN THE FUTURE.....despite being unsuccessful doing it.
The monks would not necessarily have to flee, but openly oppose him after trying to do it privately.
-
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.
No.
What matters is that they are looked to fight until a formal policy against the faith forces them out.
They should fight openly and stop being anonymous.
-
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.
I see.
So the 41 French District priests who are fighting Menzingen are against God.
Got it.
:facepalm:
The letter was written BEFORE the doctrinal preamble became public. Now they need to start going public as doctrine has been directly attacked.
-
Is +Fellay's approved Doctrinal Preamble, which was never ratified into the official SSPX position, the official position of the SSPX today?
Keep in mind these points:
1) Most of the superiors have probably known about the Preamble for quite some time now and have said nothing against it.
2) The Preamble has just now been published thereby impelling priests to soon make a decision to accept or reject and act accordingly.
3) The Preamble will be published in the March 2013 Edition of Cor Unum and will be defended.
4) The SSPX leadership will claim that the Preamble does not change the position of the SSPX - that it is close to what the Archbishop signed.
Of course, we know that the Preamble needs to be burned along with the docuмents of Vatican II and the New Missal. But unfortunately, most people will swallow it hook, line, and sinker, and hence the need for priests to act openly.
-
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?
The evidence is that Bishop Fellay submitted this to Rome in April 2012 as the doctrinal basis for a canonical regularization.
The evidence is that he never retracted it.
The evidence is that Fr. Thouvenot said it was going to be published in March 2013 Edition of Cor Unum.
The evidence is that it will be defended with backup docuмentation in the same edition of Cor Unum.
Of course, Bishop Fellay et al will say that it is line with the Archbishop's position, but we all know that that defence is a bunch of crock!
Still waiting for you to show me where the rejected preamble has become official SSPX policy.
-
So if Dom Thomas in Brazil went liberal, all his monks would have to flee, on the basis of what he would LiKE TO DO IN THE FUTURE.....despite being unsuccessful doing it.
The monks would not necessarily have to flee, but openly oppose him after trying to do it privately.
Good.
Then you do not back Fr Pfeiffer's red light, since the rejected preamble is no SSPX official policy at all, but mere intention and desire of Menzingen.
-
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.
No.
What matters is that they are looked to fight until a formal policy against the faith forces them out.
They should fight openly and stop being anonymous.
So they can be picked off and neutralized.
Not a very good plan, tactically.
-
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.
I see.
So the 41 French District priests who are fighting Menzingen are against God.
Got it.
:facepalm:
The letter was written BEFORE the doctrinal preamble became public. Now they need to start going public as doctrine has been directly attacked.
Can you please quote me some doctrine to back that groundless opinion?
-
Is +Fellay's approved Doctrinal Preamble, which was never ratified into the official SSPX position, the official position of the SSPX today?
Keep in mind these points:
1) Most of the superiors have probably known about the Preamble for quite some time now and have said nothing against it.
2) The Preamble has just now been published thereby impelling priests to soon make a decision to accept or reject and act accordingly.
3) The Preamble will be published in the March 2013 Edition of Cor Unum and will be defended.
4) The SSPX leadership will claim that the Preamble does not change the position of the SSPX - that it is close to what the Archbishop signed.
Of course, we know that the Preamble needs to be burned along with the docuмents of Vatican II and the New Missal. But unfortunately, most people will swallow it hook, line, and sinker, and hence the need for priests to act openly.
Please answer Matthew's question.
-
What is an acceptable situation in your parish?
1- Does your priest speak against the modernists, even if it is the Pope?
2- Does your priest show the reality of who Bishop Fellay is and what he is doing? If yes, does he condemn it?
3- Does he update people’s minds on the danger of what represents the actual position of the SSPX leadership?
If the answer is no I might consider it as a yellow light, but depending on the others circuмstances it still could be red light.
Now, dos the priest forbids you to take the actions mentioned above? If the answer is no you have two options:
1- Speak it out anyways and wait for them to take the decision
2- Leave and create the resistance yourself even if there is no priest, even if there is no one else with you.
You should never put yourself in a situation where you can’t speak out loudly no matter what. And it does not count to speak out anonymously on the Internet and not speaking out on your real life.
-
Still waiting for you to show me where the rejected preamble has become official SSPX policy.
It is official SSPX policy de facto.
-
Then you do not back Fr Pfeiffer's red light, since the rejected preamble is no SSPX official policy at all, but mere intention and desire of Menzingen.
From what I remember of last Sunday's sermon, Fr. Pfeiffer said the priests now need to speak out. I believe that priests need time to read and digest the Preamble, but then they must act for or against.
-
So they can be picked off and neutralized.
Not a very good plan, tactically.
The more that do come out, the more will be encouraged to come out. Even if they are picked off, there will be laity who will follow and support them. The past several months have had very little effect. The superiors are becoming more bold. The intended defence of the Preamble in Cor Unum shows how far their boldness goes.
-
Can you please quote me some doctrine to back that groundless opinion?
What?
-
Is +Fellay's approved Doctrinal Preamble, which was never ratified into the official SSPX position, the official position of the SSPX today?
Keep in mind these points:
1) Most of the superiors have probably known about the Preamble for quite some time now and have said nothing against it.
2) The Preamble has just now been published thereby impelling priests to soon make a decision to accept or reject and act accordingly.
3) The Preamble will be published in the March 2013 Edition of Cor Unum and will be defended.
4) The SSPX leadership will claim that the Preamble does not change the position of the SSPX - that it is close to what the Archbishop signed.
Of course, we know that the Preamble needs to be burned along with the docuмents of Vatican II and the New Missal. But unfortunately, most people will swallow it hook, line, and sinker, and hence the need for priests to act openly.
Please answer Matthew's question.
It is official SSPX policy de facto.
-
Still waiting for you to show me where the rejected preamble has become official SSPX policy.
It is official SSPX policy de facto.
No.
The whole argument is Fr Pfeiffer's contention that the rejected doctrinal preamble is official SSPX policy, which precludes all attendance at all SSPX chapels.
You have backed that perspective.
Your response in this post is an admission that there is no such policy, in which case attendance at SSPX chapels cannot reasonably be prohibitive, except on a case by case basis.
-
Then you do not back Fr Pfeiffer's red light, since the rejected preamble is no SSPX official policy at all, but mere intention and desire of Menzingen.
From what I remember of last Sunday's sermon, Fr. Pfeiffer said the priests now need to speak out. I believe that priests need time to read and digest the Preamble, but then they must act for or against.
This is another admission that, as of this moment, there can be no red light.
-
So they can be picked off and neutralized.
Not a very good plan, tactically.
The more that do come out, the more will be encouraged to come out. Even if they are picked off, there will be laity who will follow and support them. The past several months have had very little effect. The superiors are becoming more bold. The intended defence of the Preamble in Cor Unum shows how far their boldness goes.
Depends on your motive:
If the goal is to save the SSPX, internal resistance is the primary and most effective method.
If your goal is to fleece the SSPX of as many clergy and laity to start an independent organization, your method is best.
-
Can you please quote me some doctrine to back that groundless opinion?
What?
Repeat.
-
This is another admission that, as of this moment, there can be no red light.
I never said that we are in a red light situation universally.
-
Depends on your motive:
If the goal is to save the SSPX, internal resistance is the primary and most effective method.
If your goal is to fleece the SSPX of as many clergy and laity to start an independent organization, your method is best.
I do not think that SSPX priests should automatically jump ship. However, I do think they need to start speaking out for the sake of the faithful. Can Bishop Fellay, for example, run his SSPX if he keeps pinging priests?
-
Still waiting for you to show me where the rejected preamble has become official SSPX policy.
It is official SSPX policy de facto.
No.
Yes. But don't you think for a minute that the SSPX leadership will say that they have changed their position. They will harp that this has always been the SSPX's position.
-
Can you please quote me some doctrine to back that groundless opinion?
What?
Repeat.
I don't understand what you are asking by your question.
-
Still waiting for you to show me where the rejected preamble has become official SSPX policy.
It is official SSPX policy de facto.
No.
Yes. But don't you think for a minute that the SSPX leadership will say that they have changed their position. They will harp that this has always been the SSPX's position.
Interesting that you chose to ignore the entire response in your one word quote, but i understand why you needed to in order to maintain your position.
-
Still waiting for you to show me where the rejected preamble has become official SSPX policy.
It is official SSPX policy de facto.
No.
The whole argument is Fr Pfeiffer's contention that the rejected doctrinal preamble is official SSPX policy, which precludes all attendance at all SSPX chapels.
You have backed that perspective.
Your response in this post is an admission that there is no such policy, in which case attendance at SSPX chapels cannot reasonably be prohibitive, except on a case by case basis.
If tomorrow Bishop Fellay was to make a public statement that all priests were hereforward to adhere to his Doctrinal Preamble, the required actions on the part of the priests would be no different that it today, that is, study the Preamble and shortly thereafter make a decision whether to accept or reject it. For those who reject it, they must say so publicly, regardless of the consequences.
-
On the contrary, I would suggest that the tacit assumption would be that any SSPX priest wants to follow the traditional SSPX position laid down by Abp. Lefebvre, and written in the official SSPX statutes.
If some other position is to be held, it needs to be officially promulgated.
The Accordistas seem to understand this -- they frequently inject into their sermons, classes, articles, and interviews more "pro-Rome", "pro-Pope", "pro-Vatican II" elements, because they know that most of the Faithful don't necessarily share their opinions...yet.
-
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.
No.
What matters is that they are looked to fight until a formal policy against the faith forces them out.
They should fight openly and stop being anonymous.
So they can be picked off and neutralized.
Not a very good plan, tactically.
I'll bite here.
Imagine the priests that were threatened when they asked their superiors to say the Immemorial Mass, with losing their pensions and their place to live. "Picked off," eh? Why don't you ask the people that were supposedly "picked off" in the novus ordo church if it was worth it for them to do that? Most of them that were courageous enough to speak up were rewarded by God that they did speak up and don't regret their decision to DO THE RIGHT THING!
-
What is an acceptable situation in your parish?
1- Does your priest speak against the modernists, even if it is the Pope?
2- Does your priest show the reality of who Bishop Fellay is and what he is doing? If yes, does he condemn it?
3- Does he update people’s minds on the danger of what represents the actual position of the SSPX leadership?
If the answer is no I might consider it as a yellow light, but depending on the others circuмstances it still could be red light.
Now, dos the priest forbids you to take the actions mentioned above? If the answer is no you have two options:
1- Speak it out anyways and wait for them to take the decision
2- Leave and create the resistance yourself even if there is no priest, even if there is no one else with you.
You should never put yourself in a situation where you can’t speak out loudly no matter what. And it does not count to speak out anonymously on the Internet and not speaking out on your real life.
AMEN TO THIS!
-
Still waiting for you to show me where the rejected preamble has become official SSPX policy.
It is official SSPX policy de facto.
No.
The whole argument is Fr Pfeiffer's contention that the rejected doctrinal preamble is official SSPX policy, which precludes all attendance at all SSPX chapels.
You have backed that perspective.
Your response in this post is an admission that there is no such policy, in which case attendance at SSPX chapels cannot reasonably be prohibitive, except on a case by case basis.
If tomorrow Bishop Fellay was to make a public statement that all priests were hereforward to adhere to his Doctrinal Preamble, the required actions on the part of the priests would be no different that it today, that is, study the Preamble and shortly thereafter make a decision whether to accept or reject it. For those who reject it, they must say so publicly, regardless of the consequences.
In other words, you concede that the preamble is not official policy today, and therefore to cite it as a trigger for throwing up an SSPX-wide red light is ridiculous.
-
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.
No.
What matters is that they are looked to fight until a formal policy against the faith forces them out.
They should fight openly and stop being anonymous.
So they can be picked off and neutralized.
Not a very good plan, tactically.
I'll bite here.
Imagine the priests that were threatened when they asked their superiors to say the Immemorial Mass, with losing their pensions and their place to live. "Picked off," eh? Why don't you ask the people that were supposedly "picked off" in the novus ordo church if it was worth it for them to do that? Most of them that were courageous enough to speak up were rewarded by God that they did speak up and don't regret their decision to DO THE RIGHT THING!
Please stick to the subject if you wish to participate.
-
What is an acceptable situation in your parish?
1- Does your priest speak against the modernists, even if it is the Pope?
2- Does your priest show the reality of who Bishop Fellay is and what he is doing? If yes, does he condemn it?
3- Does he update people’s minds on the danger of what represents the actual position of the SSPX leadership?
If the answer is no I might consider it as a yellow light, but depending on the others circuмstances it still could be red light.
Now, dos the priest forbids you to take the actions mentioned above? If the answer is no you have two options:
1- Speak it out anyways and wait for them to take the decision
2- Leave and create the resistance yourself even if there is no priest, even if there is no one else with you.
You should never put yourself in a situation where you can’t speak out loudly no matter what. And it does not count to speak out anonymously on the Internet and not speaking out on your real life.
AMEN TO THIS!
I will be sure to remember this advice the next time I attend the resistance Mass, which would not occur in my locale but for my initial outreach to Fr Pfeiffer.
-
I wonder what would happen if this policy were made official and SSPX priests were required to sign an oath affirming it.
-
I wonder what would happen if this policy were made official and SSPX priests were required to sign an oath affirming it.
50% attrition.
-
50% attrition.
You think that many would leave? I hope you are right that so many would leave. That would make for a strong resistance. I only really know two SSPX priests personally, so I have little knowledge about the Society in general except for what I read on the internet.
-
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.
Oh no, Tele!!!
They are ALL sinning as we speak!
They must all leave today!
They are not permitted to fight!
As soon as someone in Menzingen try's to pull some funny business, it is our grave duty to abandon the SSPX the moment we hear about it, or we are part of the problem!
This makes the 37 (now 41) French SSPX priests the most guilty of all!
Glad I finally get it!
I do not have the right to deny the valid Sacraments offered by validly ordained Priests (ordained by validly consecrated Bishops) to my subjects (my wife and children), nor to myself when and where available!
-
I do not have the right to deny the valid Sacraments offered by validly ordained Priests (ordained by validly consecrated Bishops) to my subjects (my wife and children), nor to myself when and where available!
Would you go to a validly ordained Eastern Rite priest for the sacraments?
-
In other words, you concede that the preamble is not official policy today, and therefore to cite it as a trigger for throwing up an SSPX-wide red light is ridiculous.
I think you have a hard time understanding clear words.
-
I wonder what would happen if this policy were made official and SSPX priests were required to sign an oath affirming it.
I don't very much that will happen; rather, the Preamble will be defended as being historically consonant with the SSPX's position.
-
On the contrary, I would suggest that the tacit assumption would be that any SSPX priest wants to follow the traditional SSPX position laid down by Abp. Lefebvre, and written in the official SSPX statutes.
I am sure that is the way priests who are too scared to do anything about the situation would calm their consciences.
-
I do not have the right to deny the valid Sacraments offered by validly ordained Priests (ordained by validly consecrated Bishops) to my subjects (my wife and children), nor to myself when and where available!
Would you go to a validly ordained Eastern Rite priest for the sacraments?
I have and I will. This of course depends upon the "orthodoxy" of the individual cleric.
-
I have and I will.
Thank you for answering my question. I have also, though I prefer SSPX priests.
-
Seraphim said,
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)!
Bishop Williamson's new Eleison Comments...
_________________________________________________
28 March 2013
OPEN LETTER TO PRIESTS of the SOCIETY of ST PIUS X.
Reverend and dear Fathers,
The recent publication of the Doctrinal Declaration, addressed by the General Council of the Society of St Pius X to the Church authorities in Rome on April 15 last year, confirms our worst fears. We waited for nearly a year to know what it contains. It proves once and for all that the present leadership of the Society of St Pius X means to lead it away from the direction set for it by Archbishop Lefebvre, and towards the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council.
However busy you may be with the daily ministry, this is bound to concern you because it means that the souls under your care are, through you, coming under Superiors meaning to lead them and yourselves towards, even into, the great apostasy of modern times. We recall that it is Superiors who mould their subjects and not the other way around – have we not observed a number of good Society priests, one after another, giving up the fight for the Faith as we know Archbishop Lefebvre led it, and instead going with the flow, with the strong and very different current flowing for some years now from the top of the Society downwards ?
Detailed analysis will confirm the danger of each of the Declaration’s ten paragraphs, as outlined only briefly below:--
I Fidelity promised to the “Catholic Church” and to the “Roman Pontiff” can easily be misdirected today towards the Conciliar Church as such, and to the Conciliar Pontiffs. Distinctions are needed to avoid confusion.
II Acceptance of teachings of the Magisterium in accordance with Lumen Gentium # 25 can easily be understood, especially in conjunction with Rome’s 1989 Profession of Faith which is mentioned in a footnote of the Declaration, as requiring acceptance of Vatican II doctrines.
III,1 Acceptance of Vatican II teaching on the College of Bishops as contained in Lumen Gentium, chapter III, is, despite the “Nota Praevia”, a significant step towards accepting Conciliar collegiality and the democratisation of the Church.
III,2 Recognition of the Magisterium as sole authentic interpreter of Revelation runs a grave risk of submitting Tradition to the Council, especially when the interpretation of any break between them is automatically to be rejected (cf. III,5 below).
III,3 The definition of Tradition as “the living transmission of Revelation” is highly ambiguous, and its ambiguity is only confirmed by the vague words about the Church, and by the quotation from the equally ambiguous Dei Verbum #8, which follow.
III,4 The proposition that Vatican II should “throw light” on Tradition by “deepening” it and “making it more explicit”, is thoroughly Hegelian (since when did contradictories explain and not exclude one another ?), and it risks falsifying Tradition by twisting it to fit the multiple falsehoods of the Council.
III,5 The statement that the novelties of Vatican II must be interpreted in the light of Tradition, but that no interpretation implying any break between the two is acceptable, is madness (All shirts are to be blue, but any non-blue shirt must be taken to be blue !). This madness is none other than that of Benedict XVI’s “Hermeneutic of continuity”.
III,6 Giving credit to the novelties of Vatican II as being legitimate matter of theological debate is gravely to underestimate their harmfulness. They are fit only to be condemned.
III,7 The judgment that the new sacramental Rites were legitimately promulgated is gravely misleading. The New Order of Mass especially is much too harmful to the common good of the Church to be a true law.
III,8 The “promise to respect” as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.
Reverend Fathers, whoever studies these ten paragraphs in the original text can only conclude that their author or authors have given up the Archbishop’s fight for Tradition, and have gone over in their minds to Vatican II. Do you wish yourself and your flock to be moulded by such Superiors ?
Nor let it be said that the first two and last three of the ten paragraphs are broadly taken from the Archbishop’s own Protocol of May 5, 1988, so that the Declaration is faithful to him. It is well known that on May 6 he repudiated that Protocol because he himself recognized that it made too many concessions for the Society to be able to continue defending Tradition.
Another error is to say that the danger is over because the Declaration has been “withdrawn” by the Superior General. The Declaration is the poisoned fruit of what has become a liberal mind-set at the top of the Society, and that mind-set has not been recognized, let alone retracted.
A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.
Reverend Fathers, “What cannot be cured must be endured.” Blind leaders are a punishment from God. However, the least that you can do about this disastrous Declaration is to study it for yourselves with everything that led up to it, otherwise you will lose your Society without realizing it, just as the mass of Catholics lost their Church with Vatican II, and did not realize it. Then having made the disaster clear in your own mind, you must tell the truth to your Society flock, namely the danger in which your Superiors are placing their faith and therewith their eternal salvation.
To all of us in that Society which Archbishop Lefebvre made into a worldwide fortress of the Faith, Our Lord is now putting the question of John, VI, 67 : “Will you also leave me ?”
To any and all of you I gladly impart the episcopal blessing of your servant in Christ,
+Richard Williamson, Nova Friburgo, Maundy Thursday, 2013.
-
Seraphim said,
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)!
Bishop Williamson's new Eleison Comments...
...
+Richard Williamson, Nova Friburgo, Maundy Thursday, 2013.
Interesting. A couple of points:
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
(2)He is implying, by his very act of sending such an open letter out, that there are good non-modernist priests within the society.
(3) He is not telling the priests to abandon ship; quite the contrary:
...study it for yourselves with everything that led up to it, otherwise you will lose your Society without realizing it, ...you must tell the truth to your Society flock, namely the danger in which your Superiors are placing their faith and therewith their eternal salvation.
(4) He also does not say the society, as a whole, is modernist; but that the issue is at the top:
Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.
-
What a way to go into the Triduum....................
-
Seraphim said,
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)!
Bishop Williamson's new Eleison Comments...
...
+Richard Williamson, Nova Friburgo, Maundy Thursday, 2013.
Interesting. A couple of points:
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
(2)He is implying, by his very act of sending such an open letter out, that there are good non-modernist priests within the society.
(3) He is not telling the priests to abandon ship; quite the contrary:
...study it for yourselves with everything that led up to it, otherwise you will lose your Society without realizing it, ...you must tell the truth to your Society flock, namely the danger in which your Superiors are placing their faith and therewith their eternal salvation.
(4) He also does not say the society, as a whole, is modernist; but that the issue is at the top:
Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.
Exactly.
People who WANT a red light try to FIND a red light.
Yet, when asked to quote precisely where the red light is, they can't come up with it.
Just as they pretend the Preamble is official policy in order to INVENT a red light.
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
Yet, could you please quote the section where he says that?
The answer is, again, No.
-
Seraphim said,
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)!
Bishop Williamson's new Eleison Comments...
...
+Richard Williamson, Nova Friburgo, Maundy Thursday, 2013.
Interesting. A couple of points:
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
(2)He is implying, by his very act of sending such an open letter out, that there are good non-modernist priests within the society.
(3) He is not telling the priests to abandon ship; quite the contrary:
...study it for yourselves with everything that led up to it, otherwise you will lose your Society without realizing it, ...you must tell the truth to your Society flock, namely the danger in which your Superiors are placing their faith and therewith their eternal salvation.
(4) He also does not say the society, as a whole, is modernist; but that the issue is at the top:
Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.
Exactly.
People who WANT a red light try to FIND a red light.
Yet, when asked to quote precisely where the red light is, they can't come up with it.
Just as they pretend the Preamble is official policy in order to INVENT a red light.
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
Yet, could you please quote the section where he says that?
The answer is, again, No.
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here... :detective:
I'm not going to lie: I am becoming very weary of those personalities who are following this resistance, not to include those who were never attendees of the SSPX to begin with who and who may be using it for their own, dare I say, vicious (is there a better translation for "vice-filled"?) ways. The devil surely wants the Resistance to fail, and though we know it will not, he will still try.
-
Rome are very clear with regarding changing the thinking of Traditionalists. I could have easily gone to the Good Friday liturgy today and remainder of Holy Week via the 'approved' Trad chapels. This is compromise.
Rome only want to change the thinking of and destroy Tradition. Even a few days ago, I had SSPX people tell me Pope Francis is a good pope. He might get people thinking about the social teachings, the proper distribution of wealth etc etc but he is not a Traditional Pope.
There is no doubt the Vatican is controlled by Jews and Freemasons.
There can be no agreement. Their NewChurch and Tradition are opposites.
-
The crux of the matter is that nothing will hold back Bp Fellay from trying to re-unite with the official Church
There is no doubt about this. Whilst several spanners have been thrown in the works and a resistance is building, Bishop Fellay is all set on regularisation.
-
The crux of the matter is that nothing will hold back Bp Fellay from trying to re-unite with the official Church
There is no doubt about this. Whilst several spanners have been thrown in the works and a resistance is building, Bishop Fellay is all set on regularisation.
Yes Indeed
-
I could have easily gone to the Good Friday liturgy today and remainder of Holy Week via the 'approved' Trad chapels. This is compromise.
I think you are letting the devil deceive you here JG, and have yet to see a logical reason for your stay-at-home Catholicism. I will pray for you, please do the same for me.
-
Even a few days ago, I had SSPX people tell me Pope Francis is a good pope.
Seems like many of Bishop Fellay's supporters are fond of him. A few of them do realize the truth about him, such as Rorate Caeli, but there are still pro-Fellay SSPXers who think he's wonderful. It's sad.
I've yet to encounter one supporter of Bishop Williamson who thinks Francis is a good Pope. Speaks volume.
-
Seraphim said,
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
s2srea said,
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
s2srea said,
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...
No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.
Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?
Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.
Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?
As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?
Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!
What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!
Bishop Williamson said.
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."
Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.
How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.
Blind leaders are a punishment from God.
People who WANT to see the red light will FIND the red light.
It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.
Have a Blessed Easter...
-
Seraphim said,
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
s2srea said,
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
s2srea said,
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...
No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.
No responses after Seraphim's last post, no.
Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?
Stop being dramatic. Re-read what I wrote: "He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- "
Even then, I go on to argue why your "Red Light" argument fails. Nowhere is he advising everyone to abandon ship but, rather, encourages his Prists to tell, and thereby remain a part of the Society, their laity what is going on.
Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy,
And this was rejected. (<-that little dot there is a period)
Please, don't lead yourself to believe I somehow excuse or 'believe in' Bishop Fellay. I have spoken out against his actions not only here- but also to those who attend my chapel.
PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?
See my response just above this one. It was rejected- it is not official policy. It is not what is official promoted by the Society. The point I'm trying to make is that when it is, and I pray that the Grace of our Blessed Lord does not let that be so, I will change my position. For now, I see the hand of God at work here, one way or another. If He is simply stalling, for the benefit of souls, things that are to come, then so be it. But there is not sufficient reason to deprive my family of the sacraments.
Now- this may be an situation not all are privileged to be in; I am fortunate in that the priest I have assigned to my chapel is a holy and humble man. (Fr. Cooper). Do I wish he would react and respond different? To be sure! If, however, I had a +Fellay worshiping, Fr. Rostand rear-end kissing mongrel, I can see the need to stay away! But this isn't the case for the majority of people here.
As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?
Yes, it is a crisis of Faith. Did not Archbishop Lefebvre do all he could before he finally Consecrated the 4 Bishops? The issue is, largely, with the hierarchy, in my opinion (Menzengen and those in power, thanks to Bishop Fellay). Sadly, most of the laity are oblivious to what is going on. Yet there has been no quieting of discussion of the Faith at my chapel. No holding back by my priest on preaching against the errors and evils of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo and the NewChurch establishment. So, for me, there is not sufficient reason to stop attending. You, apparently feel differently. I see error in your thinking in that everyone should stop attending; it isn't so for 'everyone'.
Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected;
This may apply to you; please realize, however, that you have no authority with your opinions, nor are you infallible.
it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!
Agreed! And I hope that Our Blessed Lord intervenes and obtains the expulsion of Bishop Fellay and his cohorts.
What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!
Bishop Williamson said.
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."
Again- you are drawing your own conclusions from the facts that Bishop Williamson here presented! Do you not realize that he (and not Seraphim, as you implied) still, with this quote in mind, gave a "yellow light" for attendance at Society Masses??? Do you believe the Doctrinal Preamble was news to him as it was to us when it was released? Please... Think!
Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.
How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.
Blind leaders are a punishment from God.
People who WANT to see the red light will FIND the red light.
It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.
Have a Blessed Easter...
I have no attachment, by God's Grace, to anything but the will of our Blessed Lord. I can see you are trying your best to do the Will of God; I am trying as well. Please pray for me and my family. A Blessed Easter to you as well.
-
I think you are letting the devil deceive you here JG, and have yet to see a logical reason for your stay-at-home Catholicism. I will pray for you, please do the same for me.
I will certainly pray for you. As for me staying at home, I don't have to explain myself. Where could I attend Mass? I certainly reject the point about being deceived by the Devil.
-
Though there is little difference between the neo SSPX and the Institute Christ the King. Perhaps I should have gone to them today.
-
Machabees
Seraphim said,
Quote:
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
s2srea said,
Quote:
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
s2srea said,
Quote:
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...
No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.
Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?
Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.
Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?
As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?
Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!
What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!
Bishop Williamson said.
Quote:
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."
Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.
How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.
Blind leaders are a punishment from God.
People who WANT to see the red light will FIND the red light.
It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.
Have a Blessed Easter...
:applause:
-
Seraphim said,
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
s2srea said,
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
s2srea said,
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...
No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.
Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?
Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.
Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?
As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?
Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!
What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!
Bishop Williamson said.
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."
Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.
How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.
Blind leaders are a punishment from God.
People who WANT to see the red light will FIND the red light.
It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.
Have a Blessed Easter...
please quote the red light.
-
I see where people are coming from as it might vary from chapel to chapel but I am inclined to agree with Fr Pfeiffer. I prayed about it and decided never to attend the SSPX again. Move onwards after Easter.
-
In reality it is a matter for SSPX clergy and not laity.
-
If an SSPX Mass were all I had access to, then unless attending it was a danger to my faith, I would continue to attend it. Even Bishop Williamson says we may do this.
-
If an SSPX Mass were all I had access to, then unless attending it was a danger to my faith, I would continue to attend it. Even Bishop Williamson says we may do this.
I can accept this view. I have no way of getting to Sunday Mass. I was offered a lift several times to the 'approved' Mass but in principle decline. Now in principle I won't attend the SSPX. It varies but how are they any different to the 'approved' groups?
It's what God wants and not Bishop Williamson. Ideally new chapels need to be established with visiting priests.
Ireland has suited both Indult and SSPX and the SSPX have never expanded so when there is a regularisation of the SSPX, laity will have two choices, the Indult or the SSPX. Unlike other countries, Independent chapels have not flourished here.
-
I see where people are coming from as it might vary from chapel to chapel but I am inclined to agree with Fr Pfeiffer. I prayed about it and decided never to attend the SSPX again. Move onwards after Easter.
Though its not impossible, I see no reason not to receive the sacraments during this Paschal Tide time from those validly ordained.
In reality it is a matter for SSPX clergy and not laity.
Agreed.
-
I see no reason not to receive the sacraments during this Paschal Tide time from those validly ordained.
In a cynical move by Indult folk, they brought in the Institute Christ the King to one Irish Diocese for a Sunday Mass as some attending opposed it being a Diocesan priest offering a Traditional Mass. Naturally soft line types were happy with this.
I certainly won't commit indultry.
-
Irish people like 'structures' thats why independent chapels dont thrive, and for a long time, sspx provided some structure, though that has waned in the last few years. Most Irish people, want to be with the pope/popes....... :confused1:
-
Irish people like 'structures' thats why independent chapels dont thrive, and for a long time, sspx provided some structure, though that has waned in the last few years. Most Irish people, want to be with the pope/popes....... :confused1:
Whilst the SSPX not moving in to cities like Limerick or Galway it was a "gain" for the Institute of Christ the King, a superficial lot, who like to dress up altar boys as little Cardinals. A smells and bells brigade. Popular with TFP people. Tradition, Family, Property like Opus Dei are best avoided.
I would rather the SSPX to them. The FSSP visit Ireland but have never established a chapel.
A problem in Ireland is there has been many conservative Catholics but few Traditionalists. There is a difference.
Personally, I am for the Mass in rural areas and for people to get out of cities.
-
The reality is it is a big crisis for the SSPX. Indult folk haven't the same problem. Many of these would still go to the Novus Ordo also.
If people feel there is no threat then stay going to the SSPX. Whilst I don't believe outside of the SSPX there is no salvation, I still feel it is the best place to be or the resistance of the likes of Fr Pfeiffer.
No matter how tempted people are they should never go to the 'approved' Mass or God forbid that invalid Novus Ordo. It is a mystery as to how Catholics can go to the Novus Ordo.
-
Again it is a personal opinion but I favour a loose network that won't be destroyed by blind obedience.I realise people won't make decisions lightly but are in very interesting times.
-
Seraphim said,
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
s2srea said,
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
s2srea said,
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...
No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.
Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?
Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.
Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?
As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?
Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!
What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!
Bishop Williamson said.
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."
Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.
How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.
Blind leaders are a punishment from God.
People who WANT to see the red light will FIND the red light.
It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.
Have a Blessed Easter...
please quote the red light.
Again Seraphim,
I care nothing about "your Red Light". That is NOT what I am making a statement about.
Your reading comprehension is not very good...read it again.
-
s2srea,
I noticed that you lost the context of my post.
I will repeat:
"...As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?"
And,
The SSPX (modernist) Preamble is very "Official" in its contents and in its practice as POLICY within the sspx. You do not punish member priests, who do not accept it, without it already being the "stamp" of policy that the members have to accept and to follow. Very simple...
As one priest pointed out, the only difference between the 9-other traditional groups that have made an agreement with conciliar Rome, is that, AFTER they had made an agreement, they then had punished their members who did not follow the new policy. The SSPX today, is punishing their members for them to follow the new policy BEFORE an agreement!
-
Seraphim said,
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
s2srea said,
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
s2srea said,
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...
No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.
Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?
Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.
Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?
As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?
Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!
What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!
Bishop Williamson said.
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."
Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.
How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.
Blind leaders are a punishment from God.
People who WANT to see the red light will FIND the red light.
It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.
Have a Blessed Easter...
please quote the red light.
Again Seraphim,
I care nothing about "your Red Light". That is NOT what I am making a statement about.
Your reading comprehension is not very good...read it again.
Glad you agree there is no red light.
Not sure why it took 19 pages.
-
Seraphim said,
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
s2srea said,
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
s2srea said,
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...
No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.
Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?
Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.
Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?
As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?
Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!
What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!
Bishop Williamson said.
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."
Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.
How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.
Blind leaders are a punishment from God.
People who WANT to see the red light will FIND the red light.
It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.
Have a Blessed Easter...
please quote the red light.
Again Seraphim,
I care nothing about "your Red Light". That is NOT what I am making a statement about.
Your reading comprehension is not very good...read it again.
Glad you agree there is no red light.
Not sure why it took 19 pages.
Seraphim,
You are acting more like Pablo...with weird posts.
-
Seraphim said,
The post just prior to yours does this, pretending somewhere in the EC that Bishop Williamson says the non-official, rejected Preamble is actually policy (which is stupidity).
s2srea said,
(1)He's speaking to priests here, not the laity; he's already given us the yellow light- if he saw fit to give a red one, he would given the nature of what a 'red light' would mean.
s2srea said,
Exactly, and is why I believe there have been no responses to your question, or my points. Interesting the discussion always ends here...
No responses? Read again throughout all of Cathinfo's threads the many people who have responded.
Doesn't apply to the laity? No? In life, doesn't everyone need to make that decision? Are you not responsible for your own soul and those who you have charge over?
Contrary to reality, some people are just inordinately attached to their own way of wanting to see things, and the way they want them to be. Then, they flame their language with sarcasm because no one is putting incense on their pride.
Not policy? On April 15, 2012, Menzingen OFFICIALLY writes for the whole of the sspx member order, and OFFICIALLY sends a LEGALLY BINDING Preamble to conciliar Rome to be SIGNED, with all of its (modernistic) CONTENTS TO BE ACCEPTED, for all of the SSPX members TO FOLLOW the effectual policy, PUNISHES, and EXPELS anyone who dares to resist it -under DISOBEDIENCE to the Superiors- just like the other 9-traditional groups have done, now you are telling us that that LEGAL docuмent, in the name of the whole sspx, of which BINDS all SSPX members to, is NOT legal, and is not an effectual policy to you, that all members, under punishment, have to follow ? What do you not get?
As I care less about seraphim's colored lights (do not "drag" me into it), my statement(s) are about the obvious state of affairs that the present SSPX is NOT "perfectly orthodox", as Seraphim would like to have it otherwise, is that not obvious to you both throughout this whole year of what this SSPX crisis is all about -a crisis of the faith?
Understand correctly. It does not matter if the Preamble was accepted or rejected; it is the FACT that it is what the SSPX leaders DESIRE -Conciliar Modernism!
What is in the "interior" (modernism), is expressed on the "exterior" (the sspx preamble)!
Bishop Williamson said.
"...A third misconception is to say that since no agreement has been signed with the apostates of Rome, then there is no further problem. The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there. Following the whole modern world and the Conciliar Church, the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth."
Fact, the SUPERIORS MOLD THE INFERIORS. If the Superiors lost the Catholic truth, the inferiors, and faithful, do not get molded with it.
How explicit can you get? This has been going on for a long time. Read the rest of the Bishop’s letter to get more truth out of it...if you want to.
Blind leaders are a punishment from God.
People who WANT to see the red light will FIND the red light.
It is the WHOLE sspx crisis that is the problem; not the limited focus of "legality of words" you have an attachment to.
Have a Blessed Easter...
please quote the red light.
Again Seraphim,
I care nothing about "your Red Light". That is NOT what I am making a statement about.
Your reading comprehension is not very good...read it again.
Glad you agree there is no red light.
Not sure why it took 19 pages.
Seraphim,
You are acting more like Pablo...with weird posts.
Glad you took the time to post that.