Author Topic: Wrong or right? Conditions for the SSPXs future (Read 6441 times)

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #30 on:** October 09, 2012, 01:59:02 PM »

There is so much fodder in Brian McCall's article.

Without going point by point, I guess we'd be best off just asking if Mr. McCall was hired to write this article? Is Mr. McCall a Traditional Catholic? Does he assist at an SSPX chapel?

Does the author think the SSPX becoming regularized is a good idea? If so, why? Does the author understand the difficulties the SSPX would face if they were suddenly under the jurisdiction of a local new bishop? The SSPX is a small organization and often has indult masses established nearby by a new bishop merely for drawing Traditional Catholics away from the SSPX and into the indult so, once regularized, isn't it likely that the new bishop will declare the SSPX superfluous? (Side note: Once the SSPX is considered superfluous, would each individual SSPX Priest have to reenact the Heroic Bravery of Archbishop LeFebvre? If this bravery was present, would the funds required for a legal defense be available?)

Is the article deceptive? Does it discuss issues that are ancillary?

Does the article introduce terms unfamiliar to most readers only to be mishandled by the author?

Does the author use a method that is conducive to the machinations of a court room where the most crafty are often successful but, likewise, is a poor method to ascertain the truth?

So much fodder in Mr. McCall's article.

bowler · « **Reply #31 on:** October 09, 2012, 02:32:57 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

There is so much fodder in Brian McCall's article.

Compare it's lenght with the Eleison # 268 which it is critiquing, McCall's is like 20 times longer, and says less. Nobody will read it.

bowler · « **Reply #32 on:** October 09, 2012, 02:41:35 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson - Issue CCLXVIII - 268, Six Conditions

In an official letter of July 18 to Superiors of the Society of St Pius X, its General Secretary revealed the six “Conditions” for any future agreement between the SSPX and Rome. These were hammered out by discussion amongst the 39 capitulants of early July. Surely these Conditions demonstrate an alarming weakness on the part of the Society’s leaders as a whole.

The first “essential requirement” is freedom for the Society to teach the unchanging truth of Catholic Tradition, and to criticize those responsible for the errors of modernism, liberalism and Vatican II. Well and good. But notice how the Chapter’s vision has changed from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. No longer “Rome must convert because Truth is absolute”, but now merely “The SSPX demands freedom for itself to tell the Truth.” Instead of attacking the Conciliar treachery, the SSPX now wants the traitors to give it permission to tell the Truth ? “O, what a fall was there !”

The second condition requires exclusive use of the 1962 liturgy. Again, well and good, insofar as the 1962 liturgy is no such betrayal of the Faith as is the Conciliar liturgy imposed by Rome from 1969 onwards. But do we not right now see Rome preparing to impose on Traditional Congregations that have submitted to its authority a “mutual enrichment” Missal, mixing Tradition and the Novus Ordo? Once the SSPX were to have submitted to Rome, why should it be any more protected ?

The third condition requires the guarantee of at least one bishop. The key question here is, who will choose him ? Readers, in the text of any future “agreement” with Rome, go straight for the paragraph about the appointment of bishops. In 1988 Rome proposed that the Archbishop present a selection of three candidates for Rome to choose one. Rome then rejected all three. When will people get it ? Catholics must fight and fight in this titanic war between the religion of God and the religion of man.

The fourth condition desires that the Society have its own tribunals of the first instance. But if any higher tribunal is of the official Church and can undo the lower tribunals’ decisions, what Catholic decision of any Society tribunal will still have any force at all ?

The fifth condition desires exemption of SSPX houses from control by diocesan bishops. Unbelievable ! For nigh on 40 years the SSPX has been fighting to save the Faith by protecting its true practice from interference by the local Conciliar bishops, and now comes the General Chapter merely desiring independence from them ? The Society is not what it was, dear readers. It is in the hands of people quite different from Archbishop Lefebvre !

The sixth and last condition desires a Commission to be set up in Rome to look after Tradition, with a a strong representation from Tradition, but “dependent on the Pope”. Dependent on the Pope ? But have the Conciliar Popes not been ringleaders of Conciliarism ? Is Conciliarism no longer a problem ?

In conclusion, these six conditions are excessively grave. Unless the Society’s leadership is shaken out of its dream of peace with Conciliar Rome as revealed by them, then the last worldwide bastion of Catholic Tradition risks being on its way to surrendering to the enemies of the Faith. Maybe bastions are out of date.

Friends, prepare to fight for the Faith from within your homes. Fortify your homes.

Kyrie eleison.

© 2012 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.

magdalena · « **Reply #33 on:** October 09, 2012, 05:15:12 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Capt McQuigg
There is so much fodder in Brian McCall's article.

Compare it's lenght with the Eleison # 268 which it is critiquing, McCall's is like 20 times longer, and says less. Nobody will read it.

I did read the article. And it could have been condensed into a single paragraph and still have been repetitious. It's legal jargon which amounts to nothing. McCall would have us believe that Rome is trustworthy and cares about the Faith and the souls entrusted to it. Rome cares nothing of the sort. Any compromises the Society under +Fellay makes will be turned to Rome's advantage. And what do they want? The extinction of Tradition. I have a difficult time believing that +Fellay is so naive as to believe anything contrary to that notion. So that leaves one question: What is really going on here?

bowler · « **Reply #34 on:** October 10, 2012, 11:20:26 AM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

http://sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/wrong_or_right_conditions_for_the_sspxs_future10-2-2012.htm

Wrong or right?
Conditions for the SSPX's future
A reply to Eleison Comments, #168

Brian McCall....

He can't even get something so simple as the the title of the article right. It's all down hill from there.

Bishop Willamson's Eleison Comments was #268.