It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:40 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome) 
Author Message

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
I should think that with the forum re-opening, it would make sense to discuss the latest issue that involves traditional Catholics. That is, of course, the meeting in Rome between the SSPX and the CDF.

Information seems scarce. At least, I have not been able to glean much from the newswires, the forums, or the internet. Perhaps the membership here has better information, or perhaps we should not even concern ourselves with what is happening. But I do think this is an important event. What we do know is this:

We know that the Society has accepted Summorum Pontificum as fulfilling their demand that the traditional Mass be "freed". I don't think it does as there are numerous caveats in the document and it strictly limits the traditional Mass to the 1962 Missal, but the Society accepts that it did.

We know that the Society has accepted that the "lifting" of the excommunications on the living bishops of the Society (while the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre apparently remains in tact).

We know that the Society and Rome engaged in doctrinal discussions and all parties seem to agree that the talks ended without any resolution on any matter. What, precisely, they discussed has not, to my knowledge, been published.

We know that Rome summoned Bishop Fellay and presented him with a two-page document that is currently being kept secret. On another forum someone asked why the Society has to keep all of their dealings with Rome "confidential". I believe it is because Bishop Fellay does not want any arguments presented to the public for or against their dealings with Rome by people who may not agree with him so that whatever he and his staff decides can be presented as a fait accompli to the Society who, he believes, will accept whatever his decision is.

I've read several news sources that report the document essentially makes the claim that each and every doctrinal issue in which Rome and the Society disagree are not settled doctrinal matters. The reports seem to indicate that it is now the official position of Rome that matters such as religious liberty, ecumenism, the Novus Ordo, salvation outside the Church, etc., are matters still open to discussion doctrinal discussion and that the Society will be at liberty to discuss, debate, and even promote their opinions, but that these matters are open to legitimate disagreement. In essence, Rome is inviting the Society to a seat at the table. Whether they will sit next to the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Hindus, the Muslims, or the Animists is something still to work out; but they would have a seat and Bishop Fellay need only to sign on to the document to receive full "legitimacy" (and I presume, "full communion") in the Conciliar church.

The question really is what will Bishop Fellay do? And, frankly, I think this is an unknown. What's more, I know a number of people, ordinary Catholics, who are nervous about what Bishop Fellay will decide.


Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:27 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum
TKGS,

Thanks for this. It's good to get the facts down, as you have done. I'll try and add to them.

Incidentally, that's a good observation concerning the excommunication of Archbishop L. Likewise Bishop de Castro Mayer! Not that either censure meant anything in reality, however too many of the faithful thought that they did and that's always important.

There is a great deal more known about the process than some commentators appear to admit. I'm not sure if that is because they don't believe what the SSPX spokesmen say, or simply that they lack comprehension. It is partly due to the fact that the SSPX and rome have strikingly different objectives. The Vatican appears to treat the process as similar to their approach to say, the Anglicans. A common doctrinal platform would be prepared, and hopefully some kind of compromise agreement would be reached based upon that. The SSPX has no interest in ambiguous doctrinal statements, indeed, it despises them. The Vatican thinks that the Society wants regularisation and hopes that it will compromise to obtain it. The Society believes it must take whatever opportunities are offered to witness to the faith in Rome.

For insights into the SSPX perspective, I suggest this interview is worth reading through: http://www.dici.org/en/documents/an-ini ... -superior/

For what it's worth, and recalling that this present phase of "rome engagement" has been something like ten years in progress, I have been deeply concerned at various points also. I understand the nervousness!

What seems clear is that the SSPX more accurately characterised the nature of the crisis to the Vatican than some might have feared. That is, that it's not about abuses or about the persecution of traditionalists. It's about the doctrinal errors of V2, and the good to be secured is the good of the Church, not the good of the SSPX or the traditionalists generally.

The doctrinal talks were stated to have the purpose, from the SSPX point of view, of clarifying what is wrong with Vatican II. In other words, telling the Vatican what its fundamental, official, errors are. I accept that this is accurate. There doesn't appear to be any evidence to contradict it, and plenty of confirmation of it. Fr. Pagliarani says, "I think that to consider the talks unsuccessful is an error based on prejudice. This conclusion is drawn perhaps by those who expected from the talks some result foreign to the purposes of the talks themselves. The aim of the talks never was to arrive at a concrete agreement, but rather to compile a clear and complete dossier that would document the respective doctrinal positions of the two sides and to submit it to the Pope and the Superior General of the Society."

I recently discussed the talks with Bishop de Galarreta, who led the SSPX effort, and he confirmed this. He is a very candid man, in my estimation, and a man with high intelligence and clear thoughts. He is under no illusions whatsoever about the chances of agreement on doctrine, and he makes it clear that canonical agreement could only ever conceivably occur once doctrinal agreement occurs. For him, this means the abandonment of Modernism by rome. This is not private information, of course - it's exactly what they say publicly.

During the talks an incident occurred which illustrated the different perspectives. Somebody - Bishop Fellay perhaps - had said publicly that the purpose of the talks was to testify to the Faith at the Vatican. This was picked up by rome, and when asked by the moderator if he would like to add something to what had been said in a session, one of the Modernists replied (paraphrasing) "Well, we know that their intention is to instruct us, so what would be the point?"

Anyway, it seems that the "ultimatum" is a term which we don't have any information to support. I presume that it came from somewhere, probably rome, but the facts as known don't appear to explain what it means. What we know is that a doctrinal document has been handed over with the suggestion that it, or something close to it, would be required to be agreed to prior to any canonical regularisation. If I have an accurate view of the SSPX outlook, this will lead nowhere. How could it?

My own view is that the process is lamentable in that it reinforces the notion that Benedict is pope, and it appears to have had the effect of hardening up some SSPX leaders in their views about the validity of Novus sacramental rites, a disastrous effect with potentially terrible practical effects. On the other hand, it does assist to clarify the fundamental issue, the crisis of faith, which is the cause of all of the disasters we have witnessed.

Any data or insights people have would be most welcome.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum
Thank you. I've not seen this information before. Of course, most news sources publish only one side of the story and that is from official Rome.

By the way, I chose the title, "The Ultimatum", perhaps unwisely, because this is how the two-page document has been described in several news stories. I guess we really won't know whether this is an accurate description (at least from Rome's viewpoint) until the actual text of the document is published.


Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:55 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 11
New post Re: The Ultimatum
I am so grateful for the fair and objective addressing of these SSPX's discussions. So often those who prefer opinion to fact and always seem to see these discussions in terms of Bp. Fellay merely trying to find some way to sell out the SSPX for a cheap plastic Vatican red hat. While I wouldn't put it past the Modernists to have dangled precisely such a possibility as that before him, perhaps even in that secret two-page document, as a goad to try to find some compromise between truth and error, I really don't see Bp. Fellay sucumbing to that pressure, however much the temptation might well indeed appeal to him.
No, the above comments have it right, that the SSPX wants to try to convert the Modernists to Catholicism (an absurdly long shot, we all must agree, but hey why not at least give it a try?), but on the other side there is clearly no thought of ever converting, no consciousness of anything being at least possibly wrong with their own position, and at most merely seeking just enough compromise to make the "problem" of the SSPX (and presumably all of authentic Catholicisim along with it) go away.
There are a couple items in the above I do have some thoughts on, however:
1) This is not the only place I have seen it noted that the "lifting" of the fictitous excommunications was only for the four living bishops and does not include Abp. Levebvre (or Bp. de Castro-Meyer). But on this, at least in the days of the Vatican being the real Church and mostly using excommunications only and exactly as needed, weren't excommunications really only for the living, as a way to make it clear to them just how serious their position is? I haven't heard that excommunications continue into death, or having any meaning after a person dies (apart from where they could be buried). After all, wouldn't that be rather like keeping the dead body of a convict in prison as if that could in any way somehow extend his prison sentence? Perhaps those involved (on Vatican and SSPX sides) might all understand (or believe) that any supposed "excommunications" of Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. de Castro-Meyer would all be rendered moot and cease to exist upon their deaths. Does that idea make sense to anyone but me?
2) I perceive one other motive for one of the aspects of the discussions, namely that as long as the SSPX speaks only to the Vatican representatives in the secrecy of the discussion chambers, this effectively prevents the SSPX from defending Catholic Truth in the public forum and being of any value at all, apart from almost certainly futile attempts at converting unrepentant apostates back to a Faith already willfully abandoned by them. I have no doubt that the SSPX has been bringing all of their very best material to these discussions, material that would be positively damning to a degree that sedevacantists and TFP-type analyists could only dream of, but now rendered useless by secrecy. The SSPX is silent because the Vatican told them to be, as a condition of the talks. Even this secretive two-page letter may be merely yet another way to keep things going just so as to keep the SSPX silent for a few more months until they can think of something else to silence them.
It all comes across to me as some sort of game of ecclesiastical chicken, and we must all just watch to see who blinks first, the SSPX (resulting in compromise) or the Vatican (resulting in the SSPX discovering the truth of the Sede Vacante finding). It really is Elijah versus King Ahab all over again, but will today's Elijah find the guts to pray for the rain to stop until Jezebel is deposed?


Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:22 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum
Dear Griff,

On the secrecy thing, part of the angst (and I have felt it, believe me!) comes from the fact that we can't place complete trust in Bishop Fellay and the SSPX leadership because they are, after all, only men, not the Catholic Church. Prudence dictates a healthy vigilance. And in the course of this "engagement" which is now ten years long, much disinformation has been spread which has led to doubt and suspicion. Understandable. Further, the internal politics of the SSPX is crucial (and it's not very secret if you know their priests and can speak with them!).

Frankly, the "secrecy" surrounding the doctrinal and other discussions is normal diplomatic protocol and is clearly necessary in the framework the SSPX work within. They do sincerely think Benedict is pope. No justice can be done to them if this is not kept in view. Our personal irritation with them in failing to agree with us can't be permitted to impinge upon our judgements.

Finally, the factor that underlies my own confidence in the SSPX leadership is my judgement that their clergy generally are opposed to any compromise and do not yearn for an agreement. This is a question of fact, of course, and it may be that others form a different judgement, however some of them (such as Bishop Sanborn) have been predicting disaster, in writing, for decades, and it has yet to materialise. Bishop Fellay can't and won't break up the SSPX in order to gain some theoretical advantage. Remember that Archbishop Lefebvre was not merely a man with a clear theological register, he was an experienced administrator and missionary organiser. A man of practical action. This is why the SSPX in all of their comments about sedevacantism and also when they refer to their dealings with "rome" mention prudence.

I'm not predicting the perpetual faithfulness of the SSPX, of course. I think things are bound to get worse, a lot worse, before they get better. However I don't foresee how this will occur. It's just inevitable in the absence of a pope.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:59 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum
Griff Ruby wrote:
While I wouldn't put it past the Modernists to have dangled precisely such a possibility as that before him, perhaps even in that secret two-page document


Griff, they're professionals, those heretics, there is no way that's in the document. In any case, we know what's in it - it's a doctrinal document outlining the required submission to, and the legitimate limits of dissent from, the magisterium of the heretics.

We'll probably get to see it after it fails to achieve its primary effect. The secondary effect will then be hoped for - further disunity amongst traditional Catholics as some argue that it should have been accepted and others disagree.

Incidentally, it would be nice if the various public figures about the place could stop assisting in the politics of the Modernists by reacting to this rubbish the way they do. The best way to react is calm consideration of facts within the proper limits of justice and charity. Politics suffocates in such a milieu.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The Ultimatum
Quote:
I think things are bound to get worse, a lot worse, before they get better.


My husband always tells me this. What a depressing thought!


Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum
Lorraine wrote:
Quote:
I think things are bound to get worse, a lot worse, before they get better.


My husband always tells me this. What a depressing thought!



The door has been opened for unlimited joy in the future. Pick yourself up and head-off in that direction!


(Sometimes, not so easy, I know)


Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:37 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum
Geoff, vintage Tribbe. :)

For those who want to know what the "doctrinal discussions" contained, I suggest the following source may be taken as a guide to the SSPX analysis - from an International Symposium of Theology organised by the Society of St. Pius X and attended by 62 traditional Catholic theologians in Paris in October 2002 (no, I don't know who they were). The purpose of the statement was to put together a synthesis of the teaching of Vatican II, and to clarify the main principles upon which it differs from the teaching of the Magisterium:

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post- ... ligion.htm

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:50 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:14 am
Posts: 20
Location: AZ
New post Re: The Ultimatum
John Lane wrote:
My own view is that the process is lamentable in that it reinforces the notion that Benedict is pope, and it appears to have had the effect of hardening up some SSPX leaders in their views about the validity of Novus sacramental rites, a disastrous effect with potentially terrible practical effects. On the other hand, it does assist to clarify the fundamental issue, the crisis of faith, which is the cause of all of the disasters we have witnessed.



I agree, and I believe that this is at the crux of the issue. The law of contradiction cannot be broken, and the novus ordo church has been bending and hacking at it for over 45 years now. I believe many in the SSPX, both clergy and laity recognize this. You cannot serve and acknowledge one, while being "obedient" to the other. Eventually, they will have to be honest with themselves, and distance themselves from what they know to be completely anti-Catholic and contradictory to the faith. God will take care of the rest.

Let me say now, John, thank you for reopening up the Bellarmine discussion forum! So great to "see" everyone posting here again, and I look forward to reading up on everyone....again! :D :D :D

_________________
"Tolerance is what happens when one loses their principles." Fr. A. Saenz


Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum
I have never been able to understand how the SSPX (and some others like CFN) can possibly accept these usurpers as legitimate successors of St. Peter.

My wife has been studying a recent book by Ratzinger "Jesus of Nazareth", and she often reads to me another of his most amazingly ambiguous, or just amazingly and plainly heretical, pronouncements.

Reading that book reinforces my opening statement.

Has anyone in the SSPX read anything written by that flaming heretic?

There is no possible way that man can be a true pope. Heck! In my opinion he isn't even a Bishop.

By the way, some time ago we made contact with a lawyer who is in the SSPX who has very carefully examined the Novus Ordo rites of the "ordination" of a bishop, and that of the ordination of a priest, and on the basis of his own careful examination, he is convinced that the Novus Ordo rite of "ordination" of a bishop is completely invalid.

Thus, much to his distress, he concluded that Ratzinger cannot possibly be a bishop. Following that realization, we got in an discussion with him as to whether or not a pope MUST be a bishop. He cannot reconcile what he discovered with his own desire that Ratzinger be the pope. We, of course, insisted that the Bishop of Rome, must, perforce, be a Bishop: he doesn't want to believe that.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The Ultimatum
Quote:
My wife has been studying a recent book by Ratzinger "Jesus of Nazareth", and she often reads to me another of his most amazingly ambiguous, or just amazingly and plainly heretical, pronouncements.


I read that book too - Volume II. My head was spinning as I could never pin down exactly what it is he was saying. Not only that, he never tells you that all of the theologians he is quoting are all Lutheran theologians. Unless you look in the back of the book, you would never know that fact.

That was the first thing I have ever read that he wrote...and the last!


Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:11 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum
Ken Gordon wrote:
I have never been able to understand how the SSPX (and some others like CFN) can possibly accept these usurpers as legitimate successors of St. Peter.


In the case of the SSPX my observation is that it all comes back to the same cause which underlies the Cassiciacum Thesis (i.e Guerardianism). That is, if these men haven't been popes, then the institutional Church disappeared, and that's impossible. Ergo.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:18 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum
Ken Gordon wrote:
My wife has been studying a recent book by Ratzinger "Jesus of Nazareth", and she often reads to me another of his most amazingly ambiguous, or just amazingly and plainly heretical, pronouncements.

Reading that book reinforces my opening statement.


I bought a book years ago by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger because I was trying to understand the faith better. At the time I was a "loyal" and "Conservative" Conciliar catholic trying to reconcile the faith I had recently learned from the Catechism of the Council of Trent with what I seemed to be reading elsewhere and hearing in sermons. All it did was to confuse me even more. I had bought it from Ignatius Press so it had to be orthodox, right?

I haven't picked up that book in years, but it is entitled A New Song for the Lord: Faith in Christ and Liturgy Today. It seems to have about an inch of dust on it's top but it was on my most inaccessable bookshelf. Flipping it open, I vaguely remembered reading things that shook my confidence. Either I simply could not understand what I was reading (which often happens when reading Conciliarists) or I was greatly disturbed because "something" seemed wrong. I just didn't know my Faith well enough at the time to know what was wrong.

Flipping through the book, I see that I had made exactly one note. On page 71, I made a big question mark and underlined the following: "The pagan creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based end without exception in the establishment of a cult, but the cult in this case is situated in the cycle of do ut des." The remaining of the paragraph is not any better. The one thing I read in this was that Ratzinger believes that, at least, parts of the bible are not the Words of the True God but fairy tales based on older pagan tales. This was greatly scandalous for me and it intensified my search for Truth which led me to the traditional Faith.

I think I may post this excerpt on another forum and ask for comments. I am sure that several people will post explanations to "demonstrate" that the excerpt is completely Catholic--they always do. But I think other members see this nonsense and, little by little, realize the truth of the matter. Surely the theologians and the bishops of the SSPX know this is what Ratzinger believes. How can statements that he makes, goes out of his way to publish in a book and sell to the general public, not be notorious?


Sat Sep 24, 2011 7:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
I have never been able to understand how the SSPX (and some others like CFN) can possibly accept these usurpers as legitimate successors of St. Peter.


In the case of the SSPX my observation is that it all comes back to the same cause which underlies the Cassiciacum Thesis (i.e Guerardianism). That is, if these men haven't been popes, then the institutional Church disappeared, and that's impossible. Ergo.


Yes. Hmmm....well, I think I understand their thinking, but I also believe they are ignoring some obvious things, which to me, are simply facts.

There are several other explanations of the situation with the Holy See that, to me, do not call into question the Indefectibility nor the Visibility of the Church.

But then again, I am not a theologian of their experience nor repute either.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:30 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum
I was reviewing that document prepared by Fr. Scott from the work of the Theology Symposium linked above, and various of his comments made my hair stand on end. I was intending to post some comments of my own refuting these, when I came across these by John Daly (which shows what a terrible memory I now have!). Anyway, they deal with Fr. Scott's errors sufficiently, to say the least.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=81

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:51 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The Ultimatum
John Lane wrote:
Ken Gordon wrote:
I have never been able to understand how the SSPX (and some others like CFN) can possibly accept these usurpers as legitimate successors of St. Peter.


In the case of the SSPX my observation is that it all comes back to the same cause which underlies the Cassiciacum Thesis (i.e Guerardianism). That is, if these men haven't been popes, then the institutional Church disappeared, and that's impossible. Ergo.



I know the institutional Church did not disappear because that is impossible, I also believe in the prayer known as the act of Faith, where we pray; "I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."

The way I see it is, I don't have to understand or know where exacly the institutional Church IS, but I must believe that the Holy Ghost will not lead the faithful into error, to believe the latter would be a sin against the Holy Ghost, to sin against the Holy Ghost the way I understand it, is an unforgivable sin.

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:47 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
I saw Fr. Black on the weekend and asked him what the outcome of the Albano meeting was and he said that he would tell me nothing. I asked what his feeling was personally, and he said, smiling, "I have no feeling". No hint there. (And he knows I wouldn't have published anything he told me.)

However, a report from a layman in the USA where Tissier was visiting confirms what anybody would have guessed - he apparently told her that there is no way the SSPX would be signing the "preamble." See the comment from "Dolorosa" in this blog: http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2011/1 ... ishop.html

(The Bishop W. material on that page is interesting to some degree, also. People playing politics.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:16 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
From a conference in the Philippines given by Bishop Fellay two days ago (Oct. 16, 2011):

Quote:
And so, Msgr. Fellay came to the doctrinal talks. According to him, the doctrinal talks clearly showed that Rome and the SSPX disagree on all the topics dealt with by the talks such as ecumenism, collegiality and religious liberty.

Fellay then moved on to the Doctrinal Preamble. According to Fellay, the Doctrinal Preamble contains not a single word evaluating the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX. In light of this, according to the bishop, the Doctrinal Preamble means that "things are back to zero"; he described the back and forth between Rome and the SSPX as "just going around in circles".

Towards the end, Fellay said that if the Society does not accept the Preamble, Rome "may" declare us schismatic, although "Rome didn't really put it that way". Fellay then told his listeners, "So, be ready, then." According to him, "it is not the end yet" but things may become very difficult. If they must go through "another trial", then "glory to God, and glory to the Blessed Virgin"!

At the same time, Fellay said that they have "information" that the Pope may have something "even better to give us in place of what we now have". (It was not entirely clear
what was meant by that.)

Shortly after that, the public conference ended. <http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/10/you-report-are-sspx-and-vatican-going.html>

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:08 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
And an interview with Fr. Pfluger which indicates that there will be no compromise:
http://www.dici.org/en/news/stuttgart-i ... s-pfluger/

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
I must say that Bishop Fellay has not reassured me with these words and confusion among many of the faithful about the future of the Society continues.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:24 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
TKGS wrote:
I must say that Bishop Fellay has not reassured me with these words and confusion among many of the faithful about the future of the Society continues.


Yes, it's terrible, but the reason is that they think he's pope. Everything flows from that. Because they take that seriously, they feel obliged to go when called, to engage in discussions when asked, to keep to diplomatic protocol, especially discretion, and not to put unnecessary obstacles before those men. The inevitable result is that "rome" thinks they might be able to be fooled, and the faithful think the same. It also brings to bear an unconscious pressure on the leadership and the associated faithful of the SSPX to take a less radical line on all sorts of things. In other words, it's corrosive of a staunch Catholic response to heresy and apostasy.

But having said all that, what they keep doing is writing, giving interviews, and presenting conferences in which they reaffirm the fundamental principles upon which Archbishop Lefebvre based his apostolate. I think they do this to reassure us and signal that there is no danger of compromise. It is in fact very reassuring.

Let me say that based upon conversations with all of the leaders of the SSPX over the past ten years, they are not going to sign a compromise agreement. They hope and expect "rome" to convert at some point. Until then, they believe that they have to maintain the position entrusted to them by Archbishop Lefebvre. And in case they may be tempted to abandon this trust, there are plenty of hard-liners in the SSPX who have made it clear, and continue to do so, that a compromise will blow the SSPX to pieces. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
But having said all that, what they keep doing is writing, giving interviews, and presenting conferences in which they reaffirm the fundamental principles upon which Archbishop Lefebvre based his apostolate. I think they do this to reassure us and signal that there is no danger of compromise. It is in fact very reassuring.


I understand what you are saying here and, to a point, the outcome that we have seen is reassuring. But the way the entire affair played out is most definitely not. It is reassuring that, as a whole, that Socity has not been corrupted to the point of being willing to compromise those "fundamental principles upon which Archbishop Lefebvre based his apostolate". It is not reassuring that the leader of that Society and his closest assistants have been sending up trial balloons indicating a willingness to compromise in some way. We don't know what this proposed compromise was but it seemed evident to most people I've spoken to that there was a compromise on the table and almost no one believes that Bishop Fellay did not want to accept it.

The reason the writings, interviews, and conferences that reaffirm the Society's commitment to the Catholic Faith doesn't reassure me (or most of the people I know) is that they are accompanied with other comments made which signal that possible change is in the air. After all, how much warning was there that Campos would embrace Conciliarism? I don't know. But when Father Phleuger (I'm not sure how to spell his name) gives an interview saying that the most of the Society will sign on to whatever Bishop Fellay decides, it seems to signal that Bishop Fellay is very seriously considering change. And if there's one thing that does not bode well for tradition, it's change.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:06 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
TKGS wrote:
I understand what you are saying here and, to a point, the outcome that we have seen is reassuring. But the way the entire affair played out is most definitely not. It is reassuring that, as a whole, that Socity has not been corrupted to the point of being willing to compromise those "fundamental principles upon which Archbishop Lefebvre based his apostolate". It is not reassuring that the leader of that Society and his closest assistants have been sending up trial balloons indicating a willingness to compromise in some way. We don't know what this proposed compromise was but it seemed evident to most people I've spoken to that there was a compromise on the table and almost no one believes that Bishop Fellay did not want to accept it.


Maybe, but I'd be more interested in the specific facts upon which these opinions are based.

The point about trial balloons is that they do gather information. That's why they are used. What do you think they've gathered from them?

I've been following things pretty closely, and I am privileged to be in a small parish where I can generally get some private time with the leaders when they visit, so I've spoken to all of them at more or less length, including a private interview with Bishop Fellay a couple of years ago. I've also had Bishop Williamson at my home (which was fortunate, given his subsequent home exile!). I'm not suggesting that they tell me things they wouldn't tell others - far from it, they're probably more guarded with me - but I have been able to form my own judgements based upon directly obtained data. I don't base my confidence on judgements of the goodness or faithfulness of these men (although I'm favourably impressed on that score) but rather on the whole situation. The fact is they can't compromise without blowing the SSPX up, and they know it. Look at Tissier's behaviour - he goes from a meeting where everybody agrees that Ratzinger should be the first to know their decision, and tells a layman in a parish in the USA that they won't be signing the Preamble. Bishop Fellay can't do anything about that, or he'd have the impossible situation of being seen to be disciplining two of his bishops at once. Tissier is a sede at heart, just as Archbishop Lefebvre was, and he's going to leave rather than stomach any compromise. So will Williamson, so that's two, and whilst I can't be as confident that de Galarreta's convictions will produce action, I am completely sure he shares their views. He has zero confidence that "rome" is sane, let alone Catholic. He told me that they maintain that Dignitatis Humanae teaches the exact same doctrine as Pope Pius IX. He regards that as simply irrational, which it is.

I like and respect Fr. Pfluger also, and I don't credit the notion that he is in any way untrustworthy. He may have his own views, differing from those of some of the bishops, but he is an SSPX man, he isn't going to do anything to damage the SSPX. (I'm not hinting at his views - I don't know what his are in this respect, he's too careful to reveal them to me. For all I know he's a hard-liner.)

Finally, on this point, a good proportion of the priests I know are nervous merely about the fact that there is engagement with "rome" at all, so they're going to be hard to shift to some kind of compromise. Others, of course, can't wait to be "regularised" and all the expected blessings to flow.

Quote:
After all, how much warning was there that Campos would embrace Conciliarism? I don't know.


I do, and there was plenty. The battle fought there between the views of Bishop de Castro Mayer and his own senior clergy extended over a lengthy period and they won - he kept his radical views private. It was only a matter of time before they collapsed.

Quote:
But when Father Phleuger (I'm not sure how to spell his name) gives an interview saying that the most of the Society will sign on to whatever Bishop Fellay decides, it seems to signal that Bishop Fellay is very seriously considering change.

Maybe, but it could simply be his effort to bolster unity. He's signaling to the conservatives that they have nothing to worry about, whilst reassuring the liberals that the conservatives aren't threatening to split and thereby bullying the leadership. They care deeply about the SSPX and they want it to remain intact. That is their second priority, after keeping faith with Tradition.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
TKGS wrote:
We don't know what this proposed compromise was but it seemed evident to most people I've spoken to that there was a compromise on the table and almost no one believes that Bishop Fellay did not want to accept it.


Maybe, but I'd be more interested in the specific facts upon which these opinions are based.


There are no "specific facts". The opinions are more feelings based on all the contradictory messages (not "statements", exactly, but rather veiled "messages" that one has to interpret because the actual statements are vague) from the SSPX leadership. Most people (and no one I know) gets to talk with the leadership and simply have to listen and read what is publicly available. These are the people who are confused by what they see.

Quote:
The point about trial balloons is that they do gather information. That's why they are used. What do you think they've gathered from them?


Trial balloons do gather information, but if your mission is to uphold the Catholic Faith whole and untarnished, gathering information about the willingness of people to compromise the Faith has no use. Perhaps the information they've gathered is that the Society as a whole is not yet ready to compromise. They have certainly not discovered that there is an uneasiness in the ranks of the faithful right now.

Quote:
Quote:
After all, how much warning was there that Campos would embrace Conciliarism? I don't know.


I do, and there was plenty. The battle fought there between the views of Bishop de Castro Mayer and his own senior clergy extended over a lengthy period and they won - he kept his radical views private. It was only a matter of time before they collapsed.


When you describe it this way, it sounds as if it is possible that the same thing is happening right now within the Society. Unclear statements by Bishop Fellay and his inner core have made many think that compromise is in the air. Then his senior clergy gather in council and he discovered that willingness to compromise is nearly completely absent. Bishop Fellay is keeping his (perhaps radical) views private but at the same time sending mixed signals to, at least, the lay faithful. The difference, if I read your comments above correctly, is that the senior clergy of the Society are not willing to compromise en masse--today, at any rate.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:27 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
TKGS wrote:
There are no "specific facts". The opinions are more feelings based on all the contradictory messages (not "statements", exactly, but rather veiled "messages" that one has to interpret because the actual statements are vague) from the SSPX leadership. Most people (and no one I know) gets to talk with the leadership and simply have to listen and read what is publicly available. These are the people who are confused by what they see.


Yes, and a lot of it they read commentary on, by politicians on Angelqueen or some other blog or forum. It colours the actual texts. Most of it, if not all of it, is powered by hopes for, or fears about, "regularisation".

If you care to understand it accurately, go back and read various interviews, announcements, etc., and see what they actually say, then post things which disturb you and we'll discuss them. I certainly might be wrong, none of this is an exact science!

And it isn't hard to talk to any of these men at all. Just walk up to them at a function and say that you have some concerns, could you please present them. Be frank, they respect it and there's no problem. Bishop Fellay is a very kind man, and he is willing to give time to the faithful when he can. The SSPX is really not very big!

Quote:
Trial balloons do gather information, but if your mission is to uphold the Catholic Faith whole and untarnished, gathering information about the willingness of people to compromise the Faith has no use.

Even the most liberal of these men doesn't want to compromise the faith. Fr. Schmidberger, for example, who is a fanatical anti-sedevacantist (I had a meeting with him and another priest a few years back in which I presented various texts, including the 1986 conferences by Archbishop Lefebvre on sedevacantism, and I could not get him to agree that our view is a lawful opinion!), is entirely sincere in his faith. He believes that Catholics must be meaningfully subject to Rome, which you would have to admit is a purely orthodox view.

The trial balloons I've noticed were aimed at seeing whether people wanted regularisation, that is, a legitimacy within the "Church" which the SSPX doesn't have. They weren't aimed at seeing if people were ready for apostasy!

Quote:
They have certainly not discovered that there is an uneasiness in the ranks of the faithful right now.

I am confident they know that there is unease in the ranks. But they also know that there is plenty of yearning for some kind of respectability "within the Church" as well, by the less informed of the priests and faithful. Their policies are aimed at doing what they believe is right (and they think they are doing what Archbishop Lefebvre would have done, and did), and at the same time not alienating both types, I think.

Quote:
When you describe it this way, it sounds as if it is possible that the same thing is happening right now within the Society. Unclear statements by Bishop Fellay and his inner core have made many think that compromise is in the air.

Seriously, let's take a look at those statements.

Quote:
Then his senior clergy gather in council and he discovered that willingness to compromise is nearly completely absent. Bishop Fellay is keeping his (perhaps radical) views private but at the same time sending mixed signals to, at least, the lay faithful. The difference, if I read your comments above correctly, is that the senior clergy of the Society are not willing to compromise en masse--today, at any rate.

Look, I don't see any evidence that Bishop Fellay's own views are "radical" or even liberal, so I if he's keeping them secret, then it is unclear to me how anybody else knows about them. Do we hear that he said this or that privately but refuses to say it publicly? No, and if he had an agenda he was communicating only to "insiders" it would leak. The SSPX holds secrets like a Country Women's Association branch.

One thing which really has changed, and it's good, is that Archbishop Lefebvre was not somebody who consulted his leadership in relation to big decisions. He certainly cared what they thought, but they never thought it was a democracy. This approach was retained until recently by Bishop Fellay (and Schmidberger maintained it before him, I think). This Albano meeting was a great relief to the leadership, I think, for that reason. Bishop Fellay has made it clear, by calling that meeting, that he definitely won't act unilaterally.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:26 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Is the newsletter by Fr. Morgan more evience that a deal is not happening, or is it perhaps evidence that some kind of deal remains a possibility? (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1017).

I don't know, but the whole affair is exceedingly strange.

It seems clear, however, that whatever Bishop Fellay might himself prefer (and I don't suggest what that is, because I don't know), any proposal which involves the SSPX actually agreeing to something is impossible.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:52 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum
John Lane wrote:
We'll probably get to see it after it fails to achieve its primary effect. The secondary effect will then be hoped for - further disunity amongst traditional Catholics as some argue that it should have been accepted and others disagree.


And now we're seeing the secondary effect begin to occur. Disunity amongst traditional Catholics. If divide and conquer doesn't work, try divide along different lines and conquer.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:03 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum
John Lane wrote:
John Lane wrote:
We'll probably get to see it after it fails to achieve its primary effect. The secondary effect will then be hoped for - further disunity amongst traditional Catholics as some argue that it should have been accepted and others disagree.


And now we're seeing the secondary effect begin to occur. Disunity amongst traditional Catholics. If divide and conquer doesn't work, try divide along different lines and conquer.


I see you seem to be seeing some of what I have said above in a new light. I did not reply to your post because I had no specific facts to present--just a feeling I was getting, and am still getting, from an assortment of people at one of the parishes that I attend. It is (still) an independent chapel but the leadership of that chapel has invited the SSPX to the chapel on a temporary test basis. It would seem to me, without conducting a formal survey, that of the original congregation, less than a fifth are enthusiastic about the SSPX; probably half are not happy about the SSPX at all; the rest just want the Mass (one very key parishioner who found his advice no longer appreciated by the SSPX simply abandoned the chapel and now goes to the indult Mass downtown).

I feel the divisions in the chapel every Sunday. Frankly, it doesn't really matter what Bishop Fellay wants to do or will do. What matters is that so many people simply don't trust him right now. Even if, after a period of time, Bishop Fellay publicly and forcefully rejects Rome's document, a great number of people will not embrace the SSPX. I believe they will not because of the way the SSPX has reacted to Rome and many people believe it will continue into the future.


Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:41 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum
TKGS wrote:
I see you seem to be seeing some of what I have said above in a new light.

I don't think so, TKGS. Maybe I'm missing the point, but in your first post above you stated your opinion that Bishop Fellay wants an agreement and he wants to make it unilaterally and then foist it upon everybody. That some or many people believe this is not something I care to comment upon, except to say that many people believe many things for which they have little or no supporting data.

The objection I have to what you said is that it is a judgement and as such must rest upon evidence. Strict justice demands this, as does sound reason.

This forum is a great place to assert things and discuss them calmly, whilst presenting whatever evidence there is. I say this to remind you that I am open to any view on these kinds of contingent questions.

Quote:
I feel the divisions in the chapel every Sunday. Frankly, it doesn't really matter what Bishop Fellay wants to do or will do. What matters is that so many people simply don't trust him right now. Even if, after a period of time, Bishop Fellay publicly and forcefully rejects Rome's document, a great number of people will not embrace the SSPX. I believe they will not because of the way the SSPX has reacted to Rome and many people believe it will continue into the future.

Well obviously it's neither here nor there whether people choose to receive the goods of the Church from the SSPX or another traditional Catholic source. However in relation to unity, I think we need to foster it where we can, but of course not at the expense of truth or justice.

So, why do people distrust Bishop Fellay? Many sedevacantists will distrust him, just as they distrusted Archbishop Lefebvre, simply because he's a sedeplenist and therefore must either be a fool or a knave. We can dismiss that kind of distrust, as it's obviously baseless.

More solidly founded would appear to be the fact that Bishop Fellay is "secretive" about the contacts with "rome" and also is asserted to have been contradictory in his messages to us. Let's take a look at both sources of distrust.

Firstly, in defence of secrecy, even though there doesn't appear to be a great deal of it. Secrecy in any enterprise, whether it's a religious institute or a business, or even within a family, is essential and good to a definite degree. Information security not only keeps the affairs of the enterprise under the control of those charged with authority over it, but also ensures the integrity of that information and the value of it. Further, in approaching another party secrecy is vital, whether it be for a commercial discussion or for some other grave purpose. Diplomatic protocol is good, not evil. The notion that the laity have a right to know everything that goes on within the management of the SSPX is really insupportable. We have the right not to avail ourselves of the services of the SSPX if we choose. And the SSPX has a duty to remember that its very existence is because of the needs of the laity. Neither our rights nor their duties entail full disclosure. And yet, this is important, I really think that the SSPX has been phenomenally candid despite my views on their right not to be so candid. A lot of what is said to be secrecy is in fact outright denial of rumour. Those who believe the rumour then turn and accuse the SSPX of hiding the truth. :)

And in the case of these more recent contacts with "rome" it is clear why some confidentiality had to be maintained. If it hadn't then the doctrinal exchanges could not have been conducted, because every step of the way a political storm would have erupted externally over each point of debate. Now I am not in favour of those discussions. If it were my decision, I'd have told them to rack off and when they realise that they don't have the true faith and need to return to the Catholic faith (and therefore to the Catholic Church), there will be something to discuss. But from a sedeplenist perspective the discussions were simply imperative, I think. I can't understand sedeplenist opposition to them except on the hypothesis of distrust about their "real" as opposed to their stated nature and purpose. But that's begging the question we are presently ventilating, isn't it?

Under the other head, inconsistency, I am simply unaware of the alleged basis for it. The SSPX said that the talks were aimed at witnessing to the truth at Rome, and clarifying the objections to Vatican II. I've seen nothing from any source which is inconsistent with that. Read this interview with Bishop Fellay: http://www.dici.org/en/documents/interv ... rd-fellay/
His first answer is sufficient to clarify the whole matter:
Quote:
1. Your Excellency, you have decided to try doctrinal discussions with Rome. Could you remind us of the purpose?

Bishop Fellay: You have to distinguish between Rome’s purpose and ours. Rome indicated that there were doctrinal problems with the Society [of St. Pius X] and that these problems would have to be cleared up before any canonical recognition, problems which obviously would be up to us to resolve, concerning our acceptance of the [Second Vatican] Council. But for us it is about something else: we hope to tell Rome what the Church has always taught and thereby to show the contradictions between this centuries-old teaching and what has been done in the Church since the Council. As we look at it, this is the only goal that we are pursuing.

Is that not clear?

Then look at the answer to this question:
Quote:
8. Besides witnessing to the Faith, is it important and advantageous for the Society of St. Pius X to go to Rome? Is it dangerous, and do you think that it might last a long time?

Bishop Fellay: It is very important that the Society give this witness; that is the reason for these doctrinal talks. It is really a matter of making the Catholic faith understood in Rome and trying, why not, to make it understood even more throughout the Church.

There is one danger: the danger of keeping up illusions. We see that some Catholics have managed to lull themselves to sleep with illusions. But recent events have managed to dispel them. I am thinking about the announcement of the beatification of John Paul II or the announcement of a new Assisi event along the lines of the interreligious gatherings in 1986 and 2002.


OK, now take a look at this ordination sermon by Bishop Fellay in June: http://www.dici.org/en/documents/bishop ... e-17-2011/
Note this section particularly:
Quote:
But I may say that there is something worse. On the one hand, you have this desire to put the Old Mass at the disposal of all the souls in the whole world. But then you have paragraph 19 which says that those who want to be the beneficiaries of this must neither belong to groups nor even help those who are against the New Mass. But 95 percent of those who want the Old Mass are against the New Mass! Why do we want the Old Mass? If we were satisfied with the New, we wouldn’t even think about the Old one! Those who are against the validity or the legitimacy of the New Mass are deprived of the Old one. For them: nothing! That is no longer an act of reconciliation; that’s an act of war!

I think that the only way to explain how such divergences are possible in one text is precisely these divergences within the Vatican itself. Each party tries to get something. And, of course, we are in the middle of this mess.

So you hear all kinds of rumors: absolutely everything possible and impossible! Please, my dear brethren, don’t run after these rumors. If we know something, we will tell you. We have never hid anything and we have no reason to hide what’s going on with us. If we don’t tell you anything, its because nothing is happening. Some people say that something is going to happen. No; this is not true! The truth is that Cardinal Levada has called me to Rome and it appears that it will be around the middle of September. That’s the only thing I know. It’s about the discussions we had with Rome. After these discussions, it had been said that “the documents will be given to the higher authorities.” These are the exact words. That’s the only thing I know about the future. All the rest is made up. Please don’t run after these rumors.

All this shows, my dear brethren, that the fight is continuing. There are two dangers today, if I may say. The first is to be under the illusion that everything is fine, everything is finished, the fight is over. That, however, is an enormous illusion. I can guarantee you, my dear brethren, that if and when Rome finally corrects this canonical situation, the fight will start. It will not be the end! But we are not there yet. How long do we have to wait? I don’t know; I have no idea! We will continue to say that there is a crisis in the church. Sometimes it’s really frustrating because in Rome they give the impression that everything is fine, and the next day we talk to them it’s not. These are the words from the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “But you know, it’s the priests, it’s the bishops, it’s the Catholic universities: they are full of heresies!” That’s what the the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith told us in June 2009! So they know that the situation in the Church is dramatic. If they are able to say that it is full of heresies everywhere, it really means something! At the same time, they act as if everything is fine. It is disappointing and confusing, my dear Brethren, but that’s the situation.

Therefore, don’t get caught up in all these illusions. But at the same time, don’t let discouragement touch you. It’s true that this fight is long but we cannot change that. The devil remains the devil and we are not going to make peace with the him. It’s going to last as long as God wants, but we have all we need for this fight: grace and the support of God. So we must continue in this fight with serenity and without discouragement. It’s so clear that we are blessed by God. The traditional Mass that we are celebrating is nurturing the Christian spirit inside of us, the spirit of Christ, which teaches us that we have to stay away from the world, to make moderate use of earthly goods, and that what is most important is not here on earth. What is most important is God, heaven, our eternal destiny.

My dear brethren, if I call you to this Rosary Crusade, it’s precisely to help you get out of these traps, both of illusion and of discouragement. In this prayer, in this chain of roses which unites us to the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are sure to be under her protection and to be fighting the right fight. She will lead us! Do not fear; the good Mother is not going to abandon her children. Be generous, be really generous in these prayers. We cannot expect good things for the Church through human means. No, we expect them by supernatural means and prayer precisely is one of the mightiest means we have.

So the Motu Proprio includes an act of war. Let the neo-caths pack that in their peace pipes and inhale deeply. And notice also how serenely he mentions that some of us have an issue not just with lawfulness but with validity. That "us" includes Bishop Tissier, who told me directly he doubts the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration. Bishop Fellay knows that, and doesn't have a problem with it. He also knows some of his men are sedevacantists, and doesn't have a problem with that either. He regards it as Archbishop Lefebvre regarded it - a legitimate opinion.

As for the Rosary Crusade, isn't that the most perfect explanation of sound motive and the necessary supernatural outlook that one could hope for?

Now please tell me if you have seen anything from Bishop Fellay or any other senior SSPX figure which contradicts his statements here and in those interviews.

Now, let's discuss one real, and relatively recent, source of distrust.

A couple of days ago I became aware for the first time of what has been called "Krahgate" and so I read everything I could find about it. I will tell you what I think. This is only my opinion, of course, and it is subject to better information or better judgement, but so far as things are clear from the available data here is what I see.

Maximilian Krah is in favour of a deal with "rome" as are the bulk of the German clergy, as far as I can tell. Fr. Schmidberger is their leader and he is certainly an enthusiast in that direction. We cannot allow our prejudices against this view to colour our judgement of it, however, and it is an eminently defensible view on sedeplenist principles. Foolish, but defensible. Very foolish, but defensible.

Maximilian Krah is also a business lawyer and works amongst lots of worldly people and especially a lot of Jewish people. I've had considerable experience myself dealing with high-level investment professionals and there are many Jewish people amongst them. Holding conservative views whilst attempting to foster good relations with these people is difficult. I could share some interesting and entertaining war stories. In Germany also, everybody under 50 and many over that age, have been raised in an educational and cultural atmosphere in which the slightest sympathy with truly conservative views is radioactive. Imagine a milieu which is similar to that which pertained in the USA in respect of 9/11 for several years after that event, in which it was virtually impossible to discuss the issues with most people without provoking an extreme reaction, a reaction which poisoned all other possibilities. Well that's what it's like in Germany in relation to World War II and it's been like that for decades. Further, the law supports this psychological tyranny to such an extent that the SSPX, for example, could suffer immense material losses (property etc) if it were to misstep in certain ways.

So Mr. Krah is invited to a social function for which the main purpose is raising funds for an Israeli institution, and he goes. I am not surprised, however I wouldn't have done it myself. I'd rather listen to a whole speech by John Paul II with my mouth duct-taped shut than attend such a function.

This background will also give you an appreciation for what the pressures were in relation to Bishop Williamson, and why the hierarchy of the SSPX decided that not contesting the charges and paying a fine, then burying the matter, would be the best policy. We don't have to agree with it, we just have to recognise it for what it is.

In my view it is likely that Mr. Krah actively managed the communications with the media, probably without the knowledge of Bishop Fellay, in relation to Bishop Williamson. I think the idea that he told Der Spiegel about the appointment of the new lawyer is better than plausible. In relation to the events of November 17-20 2010 I think that the most plausible theory which fits the known facts is that Mr. Krah told Der Spiegel about the new lawyer, and then in turn told Bishop Fellay that Der Spiegel was on the case. That would be why Bishop Fellay said he learned "from the press" about the matter. Alternatively, Der Spiegel called him and asked him about it directly. The fact that Der Speigel didn't publish until the 20th is irrelevant. Journalists and editors both have many reasons not to publish quickly in any given case - it means nothing. I note in passing that Fr. Nitoglia asserts that Der Spiegel published on the 19th. I haven't checked which date is correct, but I think it immaterial.

So in my view, there is insufficient evidence to accuse Mr. Krah of being an agent of some outside body, and there is sufficient plausible reason to think that he would be motivated to act as he did for reasons which seemed to him completely consistent with his Catholic faith and good morals. And he is, after all, a lawyer.

My advice? Sack him, for the common good.

Why did Bishop Fellay issue a threat to Bishop Williamson on Saturday, after having learned on Friday that the latter agreed to drop the new lawyer? I don't know, but the most plausible reason is PR - that is, to ensure that it was clear that it was the action of the SSPX leadership that produced the result, which is true. I dislike the approach intensely, but I've seen it in business countless times, even on the part of good men. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. That isn't a justification so much as an explanation. And it looks like worldly advice given by a worldly lawyer. Another reason to find a new lawyer.

Anyway, that's what I think. I should add that I admire Bishop Williamson's equanimity in conceding his right to defend himself for the common good.

Let me know what you disagree with, if anything.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:18 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Dear TKGS,

And here is Bishop Fellay in 2004.

Quote:
Exclusive interview of His Excellency Bishop Fellay on the document on Ecumenism (January, 24th 2004)

Résumé :

DICI: Your Excellency, what is your intention when you address this document on ecumenism to all the cardinals?

Bishop Fellay: The fight for Tradition which we have been waging, following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, for more than 30 years now, necessarily includes the criticism of the errors which lie at the origin of the present crisis. This work of theological criticism was undertaken by our founder himself, and never failed to be present. It is maybe even more necessary today when we see these errors produce more and more poisonous fruits. It is from this point of view that were undertaken the works of the 2nd Symposium of Theology in Paris, in October 2003, the 6th theological congress of SI SI NO NO in Rome, last January; as well as the book on The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, and so many articles published in our reviews and bulletins.

It is along this same line that was written the denouncement of ecumenism which we sent to all the cardinals. As I wrote in the last Letter to Friends and Benefactors, this ecumenism, under the influence of Cardinal Kasper, is experiencing a development which is close to sweeping away movement. And we must acknowledge that these ecumenical breakthroughs are backed up by the documents signed by the pope.

DICI: Was the publication of this document opportune at a time when word went around about possible agreements between Rome and Ecône?

Bishop Fellay: It is true that since the year 2000, under the impulse of Cardinal Hoyos, a change of attitude has been manifested in Rome regarding Tradition. But, let us be frank: it is only a change of practical attitude, made manifest by interviews and exchange of mail; but we must note that it does not change a thing as to the upsurge of post-conciliar errors. And, in fact, the discussions with Rome have been at a standstill ever since the pure and simple refusal opposed to our request of freedom for the traditional Mass, a freedom which we consider as an indispensable prerequisite for any discussion.

It is not a “canonical sort of put-up job” which can bring order back into the Church. And with this document we want to remind them of the necessity of a debate on the root of the problem. That is why, far from being untimely, our approach of the cardinals aims at reminding them opportunely that this debate is doctrinal.

DICI: Don’t you think that it is urgent nevertheless to try to come to an agreement with this pope, because you do not know what his successor has in store for you?
Bishop Fellay: It is true that for the Holy Father the day of judgment is approaching, and that he will have to account for his pontificate. It is a work of charity to try to help him to evaluate these 25 years of pontificate under the eyes of God. For the blatant fact is there: John Paul II, at the end of his pontificate, sees himself the state of silent apostasy in which Europe now is. And leaning upon traditional doctrine, we strive to show that this situation is caused by 25 years of ecumenism.

Of course, we are sure that the return of the Church to her Tradition will happen only under the authority of the Vicar of Christ. But when? We do not know. The only thing we know for sure is that the Church has the promises of eternal life.

DICI: Nevertheless, isn’t it a sign of a certain hardening of the SSPX? Maybe even of the will to cease all discussion with Rome?

Bishop Fellay: On the contrary. We desire this discussion, but once again we want it on the doctrinal level. It is impossible to envision a serious debate if we ignore the root of the problem. Be it only to give a clear definition of the words we use, and thus be sure that, beyond the words, we agree on the same realities.

We do not want this “differentiated consensus”, within the framework of “unity in pluriformity” in the name of which Cardinal Kasper is discussing with the Protestants. This ambiguous expressions, this veritable contradictions in terms show with evidence that the Conciliar ecumenism does not care for the doctrinal demands, and even more simply still for the demands of sheer logic. What would you say of an agreement based upon the acknowledgement of a “differentiated consensus”, or of “consensual differences”?

DICI: The tone of the document may sound stern.

Bishop Fellay: It is certainly austere because the theological problems raised by ecumenism demand a rigorous exposition without approximations. But the letter which accompanies this document clearly indicates the meaning of our endeavor: it is a respectful appeal to the pope and to the cardinals asking them to give back to the Church her Tradition, which has been contested and even attacked since Vatican II.

DICI: Do you really think that the solution to the present crisis is purely on the doctrinal level? Do you, a priori, exclude a more diplomatic and more pragmatic approach?

Bishop Fellay: According to me, it is being pragmatic, and in any case realistic to want to give solid bases for a discussion. And whether we want it or not, these bases are doctrinal. Pragmatism is not synonymous with “burying one’s head in the sand”, this voluntary blindness on the root of the problem can only lead to “not being on the same wave length”, or even to being swindled.

The same dramatic realities are forced upon everyone, the pope as well as us. We are in a state of silent apostasy. We can get out of it only by a recourse to the Tradition of the Church. The answer to the silent apostasy must make itself heard with a strong and clear voice. Before the extent of the evil, we cannot be content with inefficient half-measures, measures which, in the end, are accomplices of the evil which they merely soothe without ever being willing to eradicate it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:24 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
From Ignis Ardens (British SSPX-favouring forum): http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Arden ... &p=9678458

Quote:
Fr. Schmidberger said on 1st November in a public lecture in Munich:
QUOTE
We shall let Rome know that further clarifications are needed here. And that we cannot accept this Preamble as it stands.
(Wir werden Rom das wissen lassen, dass hier weiteren Erklärungsbedarf besteht. Dass wir dieses Präambel nicht ohne weiteres annehmen können.)

It's a very long talk in the form of a recording and only appeared on the website today:

http://www.piusbruderschaft.de/images/s ... n_2011.mp3

He's giving it in three other towns in Germany throughout November, so I assume this represents the position for some time to come. He also says:
QUOTE
The decisive point is that the Romans understand that we have never accepted and never will accept certain things in the Council.

He mentions in particular that they see the Council and the Novus Ordo as a clear break with tradition and reject the idea of a 'hermaneutic of continuity', and that they reject in particular the Council documents 'Gaudium et Spes' and 'Dignitatis Humanae' (Religious Liberty).

It looks as if they are using 'clarifications' (they don't talk of 'ambiguities') in a diplomatic or euphemistic sense. Apparently the only difference between this and Fr. Morgan's statement is that Fr. Morgan's implied that the talks had finally come to an end, and Fr. Schmidberger is saying that they will wait and see what Rome does next.


I would say there's no substantive difference between Fr. Morgan's statement and those made by Bishop Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger. The difference would appear to be that Fr. Morgan wants to kill the speculation that he and the rest of the SSPX will compromise, whereas Bishop Fellay believes that what he and the others have already said is sufficient to reassure the faithful (and the priests) that there will be no compromise. I prefer Fr. Morgan's approach, and I admire his courage. No doubt he is in big trouble with head office!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:49 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum
John Lane wrote:
We'll probably get to see it after it fails to achieve its primary effect. The secondary effect will then be hoped for - further disunity amongst traditional Catholics as some argue that it should have been accepted and others disagree.


And here is direct confirmation by "rome" that its intent is to foment division within the SSPX.

Quote:
Pour Rome, ce préambule alimente le débat interne

Au Vatican, sans vouloir commenter officiellement ce énième rebondissement dans les rapports entre Écône et Rome, on reconnaît cependant le « fort débat » qui existe au sein même de la Fraternité Saint-Pie-X ainsi que l’opposition de « l’aile dure » de l’institution à tout accord. Pour autant, Rome juge que le préambule doctrinal remplit ses objectifs en alimentant ce débat interne et rappelle que son seul interlocuteur est le supérieur de l’institution, Mgr Bernard Fellay.


Quote:
For Rome, this preamble feeds the internal debate

The Vatican, not wanting to comment officially yet on another twist in the relationship between Econe and Rome, however, recognizes the "strong debate" that exists within the Society of St. Pius X and the opposition of "hardliners" to the institution of any agreement. However, Rome considers the doctrinal preamble meets its objectives by feeding the internal debate and said that its only contact [interlocuteur - I presume "official contact"] is the superior of the institution, Bishop Bernard Fellay.


From: http://www.famillechretienne.fr/agir/vi ... 63013.html

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:31 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
This explains why the SSPX insisted on doctrinal "discussions":

Quote:
Excerpt from an interview with Fideliter, Sept.-Oct. 1988.–Fr. Gleize

Fideliter: Cardinal Oddi recently declared, “I’m convinced that the division shall not last long, and that Archbishop Lefebvre shall soon be back in the Church of Rome.” Others say that the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger feel that the “Lefebvre affair” is not closed. In your last letter to the Holy Father [June 2, 1988] you declared that you were waiting for a more propitious time for the return of Rome to Tradition. What do you think of a possible re-opening of the dialogue with Rome?

Archbishop Lefebvre: We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.

I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”

Thus, the positions will be clear.

The stakes are not small. We are not content when they say to us, “You may say the traditional Mass, but you must accept the Council.” What opposes us is doctrine; it is clear.


Fr. Gleize was one of the four theologians chosen to present Catholic doctrine to the Modernists. In 2006, he prepared a summary of Archbishop Lefebvre's thinking on Vatican II and it was published by the Institute of St. Pius X, the university run by the SSPX in Paris. Excerpts were published by The Angelus) in November 2010. Part II of these excerpts can be viewed here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php? ... le_id=3118

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
According to our oldest son who continually checks on these sorts of things, 95% of the District Superiors of the SSPX are adamantly opposed to any compromise with "Rome".

Fr. Morgan, apparently, is not alone.

Among those strongly opposed is Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. I think Bishop Gallaretta is also opposed.

Personally, I cannot understand what Bishop Fellay is trying to accomplish.

Also, John, I quite agree with you that the main reason that "Rome" is making this "overture" is to attempt to cause as much division in the "traditionalist" ranks as possible.

Divide and conquer. It has worked quite well for centuries.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:07 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Ken Gordon wrote:
According to our oldest son who continually checks on these sorts of things, 95% of the District Superiors of the SSPX are adamantly opposed to any compromise with "Rome".

And a large majority of the clergy, Ken.

What's also been interesting to me, having been really out of circulation for several years, was to stroll around the 'net and take the temperature of the laity there, and I was surprised how that has changed. A few years ago the Indult disease, which always seems to involve a fever, was rampant. Now, it isn't so. The only significant forum in favour of a deal would appear to be Angelqueen, and it's just about been reduced to two topics - prayer requests and N.O. news items. The process appears to have been educative for people - it's made them think, or read, or something. Strange, but good.

Quote:
Among those strongly opposed is Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. I think Bishop Gallaretta is also opposed.

Definitely. And Williamson, of course. The latter matters for several reasons, but one factor is vital, and that is that if any other bishop remains opposed Bishop Fellay will have the problem that 50% of the SSPX bishops are opposed. That's untenable right away. So he's a large weight on one side of the scales, permanently sitting there with his legs dangling over the side, whistling "There'll Be Bluebirds Over the White Cliffs of Dover" and smiling enigmatically. :)

Quote:
Personally, I cannot understand what Bishop Fellay is trying to accomplish.


I think he is doing what he thinks the Archbishop would have done, and I hate to say this but I think once you take that as your principle it would seem to be about right. This is pretty much what Archbishop Lefebvre did when JPII was elected, and then he was disillusioned, and how. The trouble is, Fellay isn't Lefebvre. He doesn't have the moral authority, or the experience, or the skill, etc. He has done and said some dumb things under pressure. Consequently he isn't completely trusted.

There's another important aspect to his not being Lefebvre, and that is that a lot more of the nasty people feel free to attack him and accuse him of evil motives, and they get a better hearing. I don't know if you've seen the French "sede" site "Virgo Maria" but it's pure poison, against not only Fellay but also Williamson. Some traditional Catholics don't appear to have come across the part in the catechism that teaches justice and charity. I always thought Traditio was the bottom of the barrel, intellectually and morally, but apparently the barrel has depths not yet plumbed by the Fake Fathers.

Quote:
Divide and conquer. It has worked quite well for centuries.

Yes, but not by Rome. It's another sign that "rome" isn't Rome. It's just the religious branch of the revolution.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:41 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Dear TKGS,

I was speaking with a senior SSPX priest recently and he suggested that what is presently happening is that Bishop Fellay is speaking with "rome" again, hence the public silence. I stress that this is not factual data, merely his opinion or judgement based on public facts and his experience within the Fraternity over many years. Now the notion suggested is that what is occurring, at least from "rome's" side, is a classic negotiation. Ask for the highest price knowing that it will be rejected. This contextualises any lesser price as better value. It's a terrifying thought, quite frankly.

This also suggests that Bishop Fellay really wants a deal and won't walk away easily. I think that much is undeniable, based upon the bishop's actions so far.

So the situation remains one of high tension. Let's assume a deal is done which is significantly less evil than that achieved by the Fraternity of St. Peter. What possible safety factors could be incorporated which would be sufficient to quieten the clergy of the SSPX, yet also be acceptable to the more aggressive Modernists? I must admit my imagination fails. Anyway, I thought you'd like to hear this view, for what it is worth.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Dear Mr. Lane,

Thank you for this. I remain guardedly optimistic concerning the Society, but will not simply accept whatever the Society does. I have believed from the beginning that Bishop Fellay really wants a deal and I believe that the reason no deal has been reached is because of prior statements that Rome would have to return to the faith. But many people I talk with still think Bishop Fellay may be willing to sell that requirement for the "right" legal framework. As I said above and in spite of what you have noted Bishop Fellay has said in the past, I can't provide evidence, just feelings.

Just before the latest Assisi event the Society priest at the chapel talked about how this is happening not because of "Pope Benedict" but because of "Benedict's actions". He has been a priest for less than two years, but this is apparently how the Society is teaching its seminarians to think. I am curious, is a man a thief because he steals or is he merely a regular guy whose actions merely result in theft? I think the answer is obvious, but it is not apparently so to all.


Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:42 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Quote:
Just before the latest Assisi event the Society priest at the chapel talked about how this is happening not because of "Pope Benedict" but because of "Benedict's actions". He has been a priest for less than two years, but this is apparently how the Society is teaching its seminarians to think.


Now that is frightening, and I hope that how the priest expressed himself is not indicative of the current training the SSPX seminarians are receiving. That reminds me of that old saying: "The devil made me do it!"


Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:01 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
TKGS wrote:
Dear Mr. Lane,

Thank you for this. I remain guardedly optimistic concerning the Society, but will not simply accept whatever the Society does. I have believed from the beginning that Bishop Fellay really wants a deal and I believe that the reason no deal has been reached is because of prior statements that Rome would have to return to the faith. But many people I talk with still think Bishop Fellay may be willing to sell that requirement for the "right" legal framework. As I said above and in spite of what you have noted Bishop Fellay has said in the past, I can't provide evidence, just feelings.


Well we're all just forming judgements based upon data which even if it is abundant, is not complete. On reflection, I'm not sure I agree with the priest who convinced me that Bishop Fellay really wants a deal. He's merely judging based on pretty much the same data as me, and I don't think it adds up to that conclusion. The truth is, we just don't know.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:55 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
From: http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-w ... -preamble/

Quote:
Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay : The Society of St. Pius X and the Doctrinal Preamble

28-11-2011
Filed under From Tradition, News

Why is the Doctrinal Preamble that Cardinal Levada delivered to you on September 14 still surrounded by so much secrecy, both on the part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by the Society of St. Pius X? What is this silence hiding from the priests and faithful of Tradition?

This discretion is normal for any important proceeding; it ensures the seriousness of it. It so happens that the Doctrinal Preamble that was delivered to us is a document which can be clarified and modified, as the accompanying note points out. It is not a definitive text. In a little while we will draw up a response to this document, noting frankly the doctrinal positions that we regard as indispensable. Our constant concern since the start of our talks with the Holy See—as our interlocutors know very well—has been to present the traditional position with complete loyalty.

Discretion is required on Rome’s part also, because this document—even in its present state which needs many clarifications—runs a great risk of arousing opposition from the progressives, who do not accept the very idea of a discussion about the Council, because they consider that this pastoral council is indisputable or “non-negotiable”, as though it were a dogmatic council.

Despite all these precautions, the conclusions of the meeting of the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X in Albano on October 7 have been divulged on the Internet by various yet consistent sources.

There is no lack of indiscretions on the Internet! It is true that this Doctrinal Preamble cannot receive our endorsement, although leeway has been allowed for a “legitimate discussion” about certain points of the Council. What is the extent of this leeway? The proposal that I will make in the next few days to the Roman authorities and their response in turn will enable us to evaluate our remaining options. And whatever the result of these talks may be, the final document that will have been accepted or rejected will be made public.

Better to point out the difficulties and solutions

Since this document, in your view, is not very clear, wouldn’t the simplest thing be to send its authors a flat refusal?

The simplest thing, perhaps, but not the most courteous. Since the note that accompanies it foresees the possibility of making clarifications, to me it seems necessary to ask for them instead of refusing them a priori. This in no way prejudges the response that we will give.

Since the debate between Rome and us is essentially doctrinal and mainly concerns the Council, the clarifications that we do or do not obtain will have the not insignificant advantage of making more evident where the difficulties are and where the solutions are; this is true also because this debate concerns not only the Society of St. Pius X but the entire Church as well. This is the spirit that has constantly guided our theological discussions during these past two years.

This document serves as a preamble to a canonical statute; doesn’t this implicitly abandon the marching orders that you had defined, which foresaw a doctrinal solution first before any practical agreement?

It is indeed a doctrinal preamble, the acceptance or rejection of which will then determine whether or not some canonical status is obtained. Doctrine is by no means being put in second place. And before committing ourselves to an eventual canonical status, we are studying this preamble minutely with the criterion of the Tradition to which we are faithfully bound. For we have not forgotten that there are many doctrinal differences at the origin of the dispute between Rome and us these past forty years; setting them aside in order to obtain a canonical status would expose us to the danger of seeing the same differences crop up inevitably, which would make the canonical status not just precarious but quite simply unlivable.

Therefore basically nothing has changed after these two years of theological discussions between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X?

These discussions have enabled our theologians to present straightforwardly the principal points of the Council that cause difficulties in light of the Church’s Tradition. In parallel with and perhaps thanks to these theological discussions, during the past two years voices other than our own have made themselves heard formulating critiques of the Council that second ours. Thus Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, in his study Ecumenical Council Vatican II: A Much-Needed Discussion, insisted on the different degrees of authority of the conciliar documents and on the “contrary spirit” that crept into the Second Vatican Council from the start. Similarly Bishop Athanasius Schneider had the courage, during a conference in Rome in late 2010, to ask for a Syllabus condemning the errors in interpreting the Council. Along the same lines, the historian Roberto de Mattei has nicely demonstrated the contrary influences exerted on the Council, in his most recent book, The Second Vatican Council: A History Never Before Written. We should mention also the Petition sent to Benedict XVI by those Italian Catholic intellectuals who are calling for a more in-depth examination of the Council.

All these initiatives, all these interventions clearly show that the Society of St. Pius X is not alone in seeing the doctrinal problems that Vatican II poses. This movement is extending and it can no longer be stopped.

Yes, but these university studies, these learned analyses do not contribute any concrete solutions to the problems that this council poses hic et nunc [here and now].

These studies highlight the doctrinal difficulties caused by Vatican II and consequently show why adherence to the Council is problematic. This is an essential first step.

In Rome itself, the evolving interpretations given to religious liberty, the modifications that have been made on this subject in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Compendium of it, the corrections that are currently being studied for the Code of Canon Law… all this shows the difficulties that you run into when you try to abide by the conciliar documents at all costs, and from our perspective this nicely shows the impossibility of adhering in a stable way to a doctrine in motion.

Isn’t the Creed sufficient identification for a Catholic?

In your view, what is doctrinally stable today?

The only doctrine ne varietur [safeguarding against change] is quite obviously the Creed, the profession of the Catholic faith. The Second Vatican Council was intended to be pastoral; it did not define any dogma. It did not add to the articles of faith: “I believe in religious liberty, in ecumenism, in collegiality….” Wouldn’t the Creed still be sufficient today to identify someone as Catholic? Doesn’t it still express the whole Catholic faith? When people renounce their errors and join the Catholic Church, are they now required to profess their faith in religious liberty, ecumenism or collegiality? As for us, the spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, who always refrained from setting up a parallel Church and always intended to be faithful to Eternal Rome, we have no difficulty in adhering fully to all the articles of the Creed.

In this context, can there by a solution to the crisis in the Church?

Short of a miracle, there can be no instantaneous solution. Wanting God to give the victory without asking armed men to engage in battle, to quote St. Joan of Arc, is a form of desertion. Wanting an end to the crisis without feeling concerned or involved is not really to love the Church. Providence does not dispense us from the duty of our state in life, wherever it has placed us, or from assuming our responsibilities and responding to the graces that it grants us.

The present situation of the Church in our formerly Christian countries is a tragic decline in vocations: four ordinations in Paris in 2011, only one in the diocese of Rome for 2011-2012. This is an alarming scarcity of priests: think of the pastor in Aude (department in south-central France) who has 80 worship sites. These dioceses in France are anemic to the point where in the very near future they will have to be regrouped just as the parishes have already been regrouped…. In a word, the ecclesiastical hierarchy today is heading structures that are much too large for the constantly decreasing numbers of personnel, which is strictly speaking an unmanageable situation, and not just on the economic level…. To use an image, it would be necessary to maintain a convent designed for 300 nuns while there were only 3 left. Can things continue that way for another ten years?

Some young bishops and priests who are inheriting this situation are becoming more and more aware of the sterility of 50 years of openness to the modern world. They do not place the blame exclusively on the secularization of society; they are asking about the responsibility of the Council which opened the Church up to a world that was becoming completely secularized. They wonder whether the Church could adapt to modernity to that extent without adopting its spirit.

These bishops and these priests are asking themselves these questions, and some of them are asking us… discreetly, like Nicodemus. We answer them that, confronted with this scarcity, one must find out whether Tradition is Catholic: is it merely an option or is it a necessary solution? To say that it is an option is to minimize or else deny the crisis in the Church and to try to be content with measures that have already proven ineffective.

Opposition from bishops

Even if the Society of St. Pius X obtained a canonical status from Rome, it nevertheless could not offer any solution on the ground, because the bishops would oppose it, as they did with the Motu Proprio on the Traditional Mass.

This opposition against Rome by the bishops was expressed in a muted but effective way with regard to the Motu Proprio on the Tridentine Mass, and it continues to be manifested stubbornly by some bishops with regard to the pro multis in the Canon of the Mass, which Benedict XVI, in keeping with Catholic doctrine, wants to have translated “for many” and no longer “for all”, as in most liturgies in the vernacular. Indeed, some bishops’ conferences persist in keeping that incorrect translation, again quite recently in Italy.

Thus the pope himself is experiencing this dissent by some bishops’ conferences, on this topic and on many others, which makes it possible for him to understand easily the ferocious opposition that the Society of St. Pius X will no doubt encounter from the bishops in their dioceses. They say that personally Benedict XVI wants a canonical solution; he would also have to be willing to take the measures that will render it truly effective.

Is the seriousness of the present crisis the reason why you have launched a new Rosary crusade?

In asking for these prayers I wanted above all the priests and the faithful to become more closely united to Our Lord and to His Holy Mother by the daily recitation of the Rosary and by profound meditation on its mysteries. We are not in an ordinary situation that would allow us to be content with routine mediocrity. An understanding of the current crisis is not based on rumors spread via the Internet, nor will solutions come from political astuteness or diplomatic negotiations. One must look at this crisis with the eyes of faith. Only constant reliance on Our Lord and Our Lady will make it possible for all the priests and the faithful who are devoted to Tradition to maintain this unity of outlook that supernatural faith procures. In this way we will be united during this period of great confusion.

In praying for the Church, for the consecration of Russia, as the Blessed Virgin requested at Fatima, and for the triumph of her Immaculate Heart, we are lifting our minds above our all-too-human aspirations, we are surpassing our all-too-natural fears. Only at that height can we really serve the Church, in carrying out the duties of the state of life that is entrusted to each one of us.

Menzingen, November 28, 2011


Emphasis in the original.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:31 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 25
Location: New York
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Griff mentioned the lifting of excommunications for the dead. I don't see how that can be done as no one, not even a valid Pontiff can release someone from hell.

There are other considerations here too though. There has never been a traditional order that returned and did not turn modernist. Even Campos now 'celebrates' the Novus Ordo. With the SSPX representing the lions share of traditional clergy the Mass of Reparation would be virtually non-existent. Consider also the loss of the Eucharist and the spiritual impact that has. What about their ordinations? Certainly none of their future priests would be ordained under the old rite. It is therefore highly debateable whether they would be priests at all. I do not believe the new rite of ordination is valid. With Rome's influence even if the rite were valid in time their priests wouldn't even know the faith as modernism would quickly corrupt their seminaries.

There is a lot to be lost here with very little potential gain. Face it Rome is not going back. They are very comfortable where they are. As for the parishioner, there is absolutely nothing in it for them.

It seems to me this is all part of fulfilling scripture concerning 'the last remnant'.


Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:45 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Deadlifter wrote:
Griff mentioned the lifting of excommunications for the dead. I don't see how that can be done as no one, not even a valid Pontiff can release someone from hell.


Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty. It deprives the culprit of the spiritual goods of the Church. It doesn't look to sending the culprit to hell, but rather looks to his amendment (unlike some penalties, it is medicinal in nature, not vindictive). Such a penalty can certainly be lifted after death, as a symbolic indication that the penalty was unjust or to show that the person repented, and the Church has even inflicted excommunication after death, to show that the culprit was to be reprobated.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:27 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:02 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Spokane
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Deadlifter wrote:
Griff mentioned the lifting of excommunications for the dead. I don't see how that can be done as no one, not even a valid Pontiff can release someone from hell.



Are you referring to Archbishop Lefebvre when you write about the lifting of excommunications for the dead?


Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 25
Location: New York
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John,

It is true that excommunication is intended to be medicinal not punitive. So in that sense what you re saying is true but only for venial sin(s). However, S. Thomas cautions against this:Q. 21 By excommunication the ecclesiastical judge excludes a man in a sense, from the kingdom. Wherefore, since he ought not to exclude others than the unworthy, as was clear in the definition of the keys, and since no one becomes unworthy, unless through committing a mortal sin, he lose charity which is the way leading to the kingdom, it follows that no man should be excommunicated except for mortal sin. Q 17 ....the key of the kingdom can be given to man rather than the key of hell for they are not the same.

Clearly, S. Thomas believed that those deceased who were excommunicated in an unrepented state of mortal could not be resqued from hell. Perhaps this is because those who are excommunicated are denied the sacraments until they repent. How then does someone without contrition and the benefit of confession warrant release from hell?

It is a dogma of the faith that those who die in mortal sin go to hell for eternity. There are no exceptions.

.....the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin......go straightway to hell.
Pope Eugene IV
Council of Florence excathedra 1439.

The sentence of the wicked -- taken from the catechism of the Council of Trent:
The first words "depart from me" express the heaviest punishments with which the wicked shall be visited, their eternal banishment from the sight of God, unrelieved by one consolatory hope of ever recovering so great a good....When we reflect that this torment is to be eternal.....Note that there are no exceptions.

Those who are excommunicated are no longer in communion with the Church. Baptism by blood and desire are in no way applicable to this situation. Therefore we cannot deny the dogma directly applicable here of No Salvation Outside of the Church.

"With Faith urging us we are forced to believe, and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostlic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin.
Unam Sanctam
Pope Boniface VIII 1302
Excathedra

Of course not all agree with the above. Both the 1983 Code and the Pio-Benedictine which should not be trusted support your position.


Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 25
Location: New York
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Lorraine,

Yes, I was referring to Archbishop Lefebvre. I just posted a more detailed explanation responding to John, which you may want to take a look at. But as far as the Archbishop goes I don't think it matters as the excommunication was illicit. That is assuming that there was one. They never produced the paperwork. As there was so much resentment toward him I would expect them to show whatever they had.

The point I was making was that the modernists painted themselves into a corner. I do not believe their lifting the excommunications had anything to do with good will or a reverence for the Latin Mass. I see their goal as moving toward abolitioning tradition as well as moving toward one world religion. At some point I expect them to lift all excommunications in an effort to bring all faiths under one roof. This is yet another example of the hegelian dialect. The 1983 Code of Canon Law was an extension of what Roscoe Pound, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis did to Criminal and Civil Law. Prior to them, judges based their decisions on established law. In other words they based their descions solely upon the wording of the legislation. They changed that with the introduction of Case Law which allowed for decisions to be based upon a perceived social benefit outside of the wording of the legislation. This has come to be known as legislating from the bench. Pound was a Freemason and fan of Albert Pike. In Pound's book titled Law and Morals he wrote: ...."transferring law from individual interests to social interests.Satisfaction of human wants has been the watchword rather than general security".

To modernist Rome Lefebvre was worse than Luther and clearly could not have been recipient of lifting a 'valid' excommunication as that would not apply to schismatics. Of course, I don't believe he was. For those who claim otherwise I have to ask: why then was he given an ecclesiastical burial?

"Those canons have established that we should not hold communion after their death with those with whom we did not communicte during their lifetime and that all those should be deprived of ecclesiastical burial who were seprated from the unity of the Church, and at the moment of death were no reconciled thereunto".
de Sepulturis
Pope Innocent III


Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:17 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Deadlifter wrote:
Both the 1983 Code and the Pio-Benedictine which should not be trusted support your position.


What does this mean? You don't trust the (1917) Code of Canon Law?

Excommunication is in two grades. The ipso facto excommunication (i.e. latae sententiae) allegedly incurred by Archbishop Lefebvre is the kind that excludes one from the sacraments but it does not strip one of membership in the Church. To lose membership by excommunication the censure has to be inflicted by Rome (ferendae sententiae), naming the culprit publicly, and declaring that he is to be avoided (i.e. vitandus).

If there was no mortal sin, so that the ipso facto excommunication was unjust (and in fact invalid), then the subject is not only a member of the Church but he also remains in the state of grace.

Even if somebody was truly excommunicated ipso facto, that is, had committed a mortal sin, and died without the excommunication being lifted, he could be saved by an act of perfect contrition, which would restore the state of grace to his soul. He would die a member of the Church and in the state of grace.

Regarding that quote from Pound, all law is directed primarily to the common good, rather than the good of the individual. Not sure what he was saying, but that much is OK.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:51 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
Deadlifter wrote:
Both the 1983 Code and the Pio-Benedictine which should not be trusted support your position.


What does this mean? You don't trust the (1917) Code of Canon Law?


I would ask, "Have you ever read the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law?"

I was amazed when I read it: it is the "kindest" code of laws I have ever experienced, and, from what I have read about it, it should hold very close to the same place in any Catholics thoughts as the Holy Bible, since the Code is simply a collection of the infallible decrees of legitimate councils, and decisions of both the Popes and the legitimate congregations of the Holy See.

What is not to trust?

As for the 1983 "Code", as with anything concerning VCII and its aftermath, I wouldn't trust THAT any further than I could throw it! :x

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 25
Location: New York
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
What is not to trust is that it is not an exact translation of the 1917 code. Canon Law was never intended to be charitable. I too for a long time believed that Cnon Law was infallible. In fact that was the final arbiter for me when examing the sedevacantist issue. However, I was wrong. Just as the bible itself is adversary to sole scriptoro, Canon Law opposes the notion of it's infalliblity.

Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law"Although in the code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church s frequently referenced, nevertheless, this code applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental."

As you know for a decree to be infallible it is binding upon the entire Church.

......the RomanPontiff when he speaks excathedra, that is when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church....operates with that infallibility.

While the Code is an excellent resource it cannot be accorded infallibility.


Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:50 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Deadlifter wrote:
As you know for a decree to be infallible it is binding upon the entire Church.


Deadlifter, you need to start again, all over. You think you've learned things by reading primary documents and interpreting them yourself. Most of the people on the Internet do the same thing. It's really hopeless.

Try this exercise: Read a theology manual, right through, and try and forget everything you already know while you do so, learning it all from scratch.

The Code is certainly infallible, in the sense that nothing in it can be conducive to bad morals or incompatible with sound doctrine. That is what the Church teaches her seminarians via her theology professors, who are the ones who wrote the approved manuals.

Also, anything laid down for the Latin church is considered by theologians to meet the condition of infallibility "binding upon the entire Church." Once again, this is the doctrine of the manuals, we all believe it.

There are lots of examples of this kind of thing, where reading the primary documents will confuse or mislead. We need to think with the Church, which means we need to read the approved commentators and interpreters.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 25
Location: New York
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John,

The 1917 Code very clearly states that it does not bind the oriental Church. This is not a question of ambiguity.

Now if we are to be consistent here, shouldn't you quote your sources as well? You mention theologians but fail to provide a direct quote, the title of the book, and state the author's identity. As an example, we were discussing whether a pope can remove someone from hell by lifting an excommunication. Karl Rahner agrees with you. He is most certainly a theologian, but it would in my view be unwise to accept his teaching. Also bear in mind that not all theologians are correct. Not even doctors of the Church. It is no secret that S. Thomas was wrong about the Virgin Mary. Yet his error remains in print in the Summa today. Wouldn't you expect that to have been removed? By that example (and there are many others) we need to be cautious and vigilant in our research.

Please understand John, I'm not expressing this to be arguementative or prideful. Those are areas which we are susceptible to in e-mail exchanges particularly when it comes to differing opinions. So please do not interpret my comments along those lines. God bless.


Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:46 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Deadlifter wrote:
The 1917 Code very clearly states that it does not bind the oriental Church. This is not a question of ambiguity.


I agree, there's no ambiguity in that text. What is actually at issue is that you are equating two things which don't equate. The theologians tell us that a law for the Latin Church must be infallible because it meets the condition that infallible acts are those which bind the entire Church. I understand why you equate the two things you equate, and why it seems so perfectly straightforward to you, but you're mistaken. You will always make errors like this if you approach sacred theology like a Protestant approaches Holy Scripture - interpreting it yourself. It's the root cause of Feeneyism also.

Quote:
Now if we are to be consistent here, shouldn't you quote your sources as well? You mention theologians but fail to provide a direct quote, the title of the book, and state the author's identity.


Yes, that would be required, if I was sitting here making assertions and you or anybody else was not convinced or were to assert that I had erred. The onus would be on me to prove my case. But that isn't what is happening. On the contrary, you are going through a little period of playing teacher, writing long posts which directly assert all manner of things, and I am objecting. I don't have to prove anything, you do.

And I'm not being pedantic here. I am a very busy man, and if I accept this kind of behaviour I will be placing myself at the disposal of anybody who feels like making me do their work for them. I simply can't.

Quote:
As an example, we were discussing whether a pope can remove someone from hell by lifting an excommunication. Karl Rahner agrees with you.


I am not discussing whether a pope can remove somebody from hell by lifting an excommunication. Nothing I have written would suggest such a notion. Go back and read it all again, please. Nor would Rahner agree with me, obviously.

Quote:
He is most certainly a theologian, but it would in my view be unwise to accept his teaching. Also bear in mind that not all theologians are correct. Not even doctors of the Church. It is no secret that S. Thomas was wrong about the Virgin Mary. Yet his error remains in print in the Summa today. Wouldn't you expect that to have been removed? By that example (and there are many others) we need to be cautious and vigilant in our research.


Cautious and vigilant is precisely what you aren't. Not even close. And your principle here is absolutely anti-Catholic. You are saying that you won't learn from St. Thomas if his doctrine doesn't meet with your approval. You are the final judge, not the theologians or the Church.

St. Thomas didn't err on the Immaculate Conception. That's why his work hasn't been redacted when re-published with the approval and supervision of Rome. You just don't understand what he wrote, and this only proves that you are less than cautious and diligent.

I don't think you are being prideful. I think you are in need of instruction on how to approach sacred theology. But if you won't take my advice, I can't help you.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:39 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 25
Location: New York
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John you are taking positions which simply cannot be supported. Like suggesting that people can be removed from hell. That was precisely the implication you made within the context of the discussion when you defined excommunication. When I called you on that you cited unspecified theologians and while responding at length claim that you don't have the time to cite your sources. That is irresponsible for anyone but particularly for someone running a forum of this type. Often people come to these forums with the expectation of learning. You are doing them a disservice.

You are also misrepresenting what I have written. I never suggestd that I could not benefit from S. Thomas. Why would I have quoted him so often were that the case? My point was that his writings are not infallible. Now you claim that he wasn't in error. Yet again fail to provide a quote. So here it is:
"The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin, and therefore contracted these defects. But from the Virgin, Christ's flesh assumed the nature without sin"...
Summa Theologica
PT III, Q14, A.3
Reply to Obj. 1
S. Thomas

You accused me also of Feeneyism simply because I quoted excathedra sources. That is an outrageous claim. At no time were Baptism of Blood or Desire discussed. Your allegation is unfounded and you should think carefully before leveling such charges. Worse yet you accuse me of individual interpretation after I quoted dogma (like hell is eternal as well as the accepted definition of infallibility) and excathedra encyclicals then go on to say you are too busy to cite your sources.


Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:15 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Deadlifter wrote:
John you are taking positions which simply cannot be supported. Like suggesting that people can be removed from hell.


I didn't write that, I don't think it, and you have no basis for suggesting it. I saw that you took the suggestion by Griff of the lifting of the excommunications against Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer as implying that somebody could be removed from hell. This is nonsense, so I explained the nature of excommunication so you would see why lifting it would not imply any such monstrosity. In response, you compounded your initial mistake by adding me to the list of those who hold your imaginary error, when in fact nobody here holds it. It's absurd. So absurd, that I didn't even address it directly. I thought it more effective to lay down some correct doctrine and let you see how your imaginary windmill doesn't exist.

I REALLY don't have time for this. Go re-read the actual posts and see how mistaken you have been right through. Please.

Quote:
When I called you on that you cited unspecified theologians and while responding at length claim that you don't have the time to cite your sources. That is irresponsible for anyone but particularly for someone running a forum of this type. Often people come to these forums with the expectation of learning. You are doing them a disservice.


So I'm required to let everybody state whatever they like and if I know it's wrong I have to disprove it? Nonsense. One of the basic rules of sound thinking is that somebody who asserts a proposition has to prove it when it is denied. This is good order, apart from any other merits it has, and it has plenty. It might actually force people who like to write and talk, to read beforehand. I know how unfashionable that is, but I am old-fashioned.

Quote:
You are also misrepresenting what I have written. I never suggestd that I could not benefit from S. Thomas. Why would I have quoted him so often were that the case?


Here's what you wrote:
Quote:
Also bear in mind that not all theologians are correct. Not even doctors of the Church. It is no secret that S. Thomas was wrong about the Virgin Mary. Yet his error remains in print in the Summa today. Wouldn't you expect that to have been removed? By that example (and there are many others) we need to be cautious and vigilant in our research.

Now if words mean anything, your thesis is as follows: Theologians may be mistaken, therefore we must read them critically.

In order to demonstrate the soundness of that thesis, you adduced the example of St. Thomas on the Immaculate Conception (as every single critic of theologians always does, with monotonous predictability).

Now I am saying that your thesis is wrong, and anti-Catholic. And the reason for this is not that the theologians are infallible, because they're not. The reason is because you and I are fallible, in common with the theologians, yet the work of the theologians has been approved by the Church, and the work of the Doctors has been given the highest approval by the Church. So we don't read them critically, we sit at their feet, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas. In contrast with this, you and I are untrained laymen. I know whom to believe out of myself and St. Thomas. Why is this so hard for others? When faced with the choice between their own ideas and those of St. Thomas (or any approved theologian), why do they find it hard to decide who has more credibility? Merely to put the question is embarrassing.

Quote:
My point was that his writings are not infallible.

No, it wasn't, or you'd have said only that, and even then I would demand to know the relevance of the assertion. Your real thesis is what I have put above, which is really just a way of putting your own intellect above that of the theologians, and therefore (even though you don't realise it) above the Church which approved their works.

Quote:
Now you claim that he wasn't in error. Yet again fail to provide a quote.

Thirteen years ago I got so annoyed by the constant refrain of people just like you claiming that St. Thomas wasn't infallible and using the Immaculate Conception as "proof" that I wrote an article about it. http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/sttho ... mas&IC.htm


Quote:
You accused me also of Feeneyism simply because I quoted excathedra sources.

No, I didn't, once again, read what I actually wrote. In fact, I thought that by citing the example of the Feeneyites I'd get you to re-think your approach.

Deadlifter, you can't even understand me, how do you expect to be able to understand papal documents? Start again, mate.

And I haven't even started on your lengthy texts about democracy etc. There are countless articles in approved publications about the whole question, why wouldn't you find them and present them, if you think the matter is important? Why try and write about such complicated matters yourself? Is there some big hole in what has been written which needs to be filled?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Deadlifter: you might wish to drop back to the beginning and start here:

The virtue of humility may be defined as: "A quality by which a person considering his own defects has a lowly opinion of himself and willingly submits himself to God and to others for God's sake." St. Bernard defines it: "A virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is, abases himself." These definitions coincide with that given by St. Thomas: "The virtue of humility", he says, "Consists in keeping oneself within one's own bounds, not reaching out to things above one, but submitting to one's superior" (Summa Contra Gent., bk. IV, ch. lv. The ultimate superior being, in all cases, God Himself.

The virtue of humility is, according a shortened version of the Catholic Encyclopedia which was printed in the back of a Bible I bought when still a young man, "a uniquely Catholic virtue, completely misunderstood by almost all non-Catholics" and not fully understood by most Catholics, I might add.

Basically, it is an ongoing desire coupled with hard and continuous labor by any human being to see himself in exactly the same way God sees and understand him, with not only all his faults, weaknesses, sins, evils and failings, but also all the natural talents, graces and gifts God has given him.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
The SSPX has sent back its rejection of the Preamble and proposed an alternative, on November 30.

http://radiocristiandad.wordpress.com/2 ... a-partida/

Rough translation:
Quote:
The counterproposal of the Fraternity is already in Rome, which Father Bouchacourt has already said will be rejected by the Vatican Curia. THE LETTER REJECTING THE ROMAN PREAMBLE, AND A "CONTERPREAMBLE" (vaya uno a saber de qué tenor “concilia” dor) was delivered on 30 November to the Roman authorities.

WHAT WILL ROME RESPOND WITH NOW?


I can't work out <vaya uno a saber de qué tenor “concilia” dor>. Anybody?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:48 pm
Posts: 17
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Salve Maria!

It means something like:

"...AND A COUNTER-PREAMBLE (God only knows in what conciliatory tone)..."

Or rather, to keep the play with words, "in what 'coUnciliatory' tone..."

In JMJ,
Felipe Coelho


Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:16 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Indeed, it is a play on words.

They are using the first letters of the word "conciliador" (conciliatory), which sounds "conciliaR" = of the council (or perhaps "concilio" = council), related obviously to Vat II and perhaps with the famous 95%?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:06 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
"News" from Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 08,00.html

Not much in this, except for the following:

Quote:
For the pope's 85th birthday on Monday, his own brother showed up in Rome empty handed. But the brothers of the controversial Catholic splinter group Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) were more generous. They sent a letter -- and its contents may be the greatest gift yet to the papacy of Benedict XVI.


Quote:
The friendly letter from the SSPX to Benedict XVI arrived at the Vatican during Easter. In the Vatican's Secretariat of State -- the source of several documents that were leaked in recent months in the so-called "Vatileaks" scandal -- has classified the SSPX letter as secret and the issue is being handled with the utmost discretion. It is only to be made public following the pope's birthday celebrations.


Quote:
The new letter is significant in that it seeks to tone down the conflict. Points of disagreement are no longer to be seen in terms of who is "more Catholic" than the other. The letter makes clear that conflicting positions on Vatican II is "not decisive" for the future of the Catholic Church. In short, the Society of St. Pius X is no longer demanding that the Vatican II reforms be repealed.


This is mostly puff and spin, but the interesting factor seems to me to be the implicit assertion of a shift in position by "rome" - from demanding acceptance of Vatican II by the SSPX, to merely insisting that the SSPX not demand that the false doctrines of Vatican II be repudiated by the Vatican itself. In typical Modernist style, this suggested shift of position by "rome" is presented as a change in stance by the SSPX, which I cannot see is correct. The SSPX made clear a long time ago the lamentable position that it would be happy to be "reconciled" as long as it did not have to accept the errors of Vatican II, could remain free to attack those errors, and would not be placed in some kind of administrative bondage to the Modernists. On those terms, it would be happy to be considered as "in good standing" with the Modernist lowerarchy. This was a bad, if understandable, stance to take. In response to this weakness, the Vatican gained confidence and tried to impose the "Preamble", which of course did entail accepting Vatican II, even if with some ambiguity. The SSPX rightly rejected this. The danger was always that "rome" would turn and accept the SSPX offer, leaving the SSPX leadership no choice but to dance some kind of ambiguous and ultimately devastating waltz of death with the Modernists. The Der Spiegel article appears to suggest that this is exactly what "rome" has in mind.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
I STILL do not understand why the SSPX is playing "footsie" with "rome"! Why won't Fellay and the others simply write them off as the protestants they are?

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:27 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.