Quote from: Seraphim

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.

EM:

Quote

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

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

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...

Quote from: Telesphorus

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

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

No.

What matters is that they are looked to fight until a formal policy against the faith forces them out.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Jerome

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Seraphim,

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

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

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

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

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

I see.

So the 41 French District priests who are fighting Menzingen are against God.

Got it.

 

The letter was written BEFORE the doctrinal preamble became public.  Now they need to start going public as doctrine has been directly attacked.