SSPX Info, updates and interviews

[Megan7]

This is troublesome language. It does not promote unity or reconciliation. It speaks as if we belonged to two different Catholic Churches. I think this is what Bishop Fellay and the Vatican are trying to get through our heads. There is only one Catholic Church with many voices.

Bishop Fellay also speaks to that in his letter. He’s saying that while things are not what they should be, there has been an exaggeration of the crisis too. He speaks very clearly about the difference between what people did with Vatican II and what Vatican II wants to do for the Church. People are blending the two into one in this kind of statement. This does not help the Bishop’s attempt to pull the SSPX together and to follow him back to Rome.

I think that both sides have to be very careful how we use language these days. This has reached a very delicate page in what we hope is the final chapter of this tome. A phrase or word that triggers fireworks can undo the whole reconciliation for some people. Those on the Traditionalist side will run back into their ghetto and those in the mainstream will put up as many roadblocks as possible to keep them out.

We don’t want anymore roadblocks and we don’t want anymore ghettos.

******* I believe St. Francis said it best, “Make me an instrument of your peace . . . it is in pardoning that we are pardoned.” *********

^^^^^^^^

** You are RIGHT Brother JR, this is one of my favorite prayers!

Its beautiful! IT IS IN PARDONING THAT WE ARE PARDONED!

It is in dying that we are born to eternal Life! Amen.**

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Dear Brother JR,

My post in red above.

“Blessed are the PEACEMAKERS, for they will be called children of GOD!”
Matthew 5:3-10

God Bless,

PAX,

Megan

 

[JReducation]

Dear Brother JR,

My post in red above.

“Blessed are the PEACEMAKERS, for they will be called children of GOD!”
Matthew 5:3-10

God Bless,

PAX,

Megan

If only all of us could learn from the Seraphic Father, this would be so much easier. We need another Francis of Assisi today. There were three things that he brought to the Church at time of greater crisis then today.

1. Great faith in God’s desire to save the Church.
2. Great love for the Church.
3. A holy indifference.

He never panicked. He knew that God wanted nothing more than to save the Church. No matter what happened, the Church was not going to be lost. What was needed was for everyone to focus on their own conversion away from sin and stop monitoring everyone else.

He dearly loved the Church. This was not an abstract for him. It was very concrete. He prohibited his brothers from being critical of popes, bishops, priests and religious superiors. Regardless of their sins, Christ made himself present through them. They were to be held in respect. He taught the laity to turn away from sin, rather than turn away from the Church. That’s how he started the Order of Penance, his third order. The best gift to give the Church was a contrite heart. He understood that it was not necessary to proselytize to build up the Church. What was necessary was to preach with one’s life, not one’s mouth.

He taught us to practice a holy indifference. The world could be going to hell in a handbasket, but our lives were to remain on course as if nothing were happening. This was not a lack of caring, but a way of witnessing to all men that God is always in control and that external peace can only be achieved when the soul is at peace. He handed down a little rule, “Pray, trust and don’t worry.”

Today’s Catholic seems to be filled with too much confidence in his own abilities and little confidence in Christ. He seems to believe that if he doesn’t fix things, they won’t get fixed. It’s a very naive way of living.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Megan7]

If only all of us could learn from the Seraphic Father, this would be so much easier. We need another Francis of Assisi today. There were three things that he brought to the Church at time of greater crisis then today.

1. Great faith in God’s desire to save the Church.
2. Great love for the Church.
3. A holy indifference.

He never panicked. He knew that God wanted nothing more than to save the Church. No matter what happened, the Church was not going to be lost. What was needed was for everyone to focus on their own conversion away from sin and stop monitoring everyone else.

He dearly loved the Church. This was not an abstract for him. It was very concrete. He prohibited his brothers from being critical of popes, bishops, priests and religious superiors. Regardless of their sins, Christ made himself present through them. They were to be held in respect. He taught the laity to turn away from sin, rather than turn away from the Church. That’s how he started the Order of Penance, his third order. The best gift to give the Church was a contrite heart. He understood that it was not necessary to proselytize to build up the Church. What was necessary was to preach with one’s life, not one’s mouth.

He taught us to practice a holy indifference. The world could be going to hell in a handbasket, but our lives were to remain on course as if nothing were happening. This was not a lack of caring, but a way of witnessing to all men that God is always in control and that external peace can only be achieved when the soul is at peace. He handed down a little rule, “Pray, trust and don’t worry.”

Today’s Catholic seems to be filled with too much confidence in his own abilities and little confidence in Christ. He seems to believe that if he doesn’t fix things, they won’t get fixed. It’s a very naive way of living.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

“Preach the gospel always, & when necessary use words”

“My God and My All”

Thank you Brother JR, very nice post!

PAX,

Megan

 

[TimothyH]

Wassefall, you are so very correct, and I am afraid those in the novus ordo church can’t grasp the crisis of Vatican II.
JReducation;9292120:

This is troublesome language. It does not promote unity or reconciliation.

It’s more than troublesome. Some of us are scared.

Add some language about unleashing an army and scorched earth policy against modernists as was posted in another thread and people seriously start getting nervous.

Here in the deep south I’ve heard some pretty heavy stuff from Baptists, Evangelicals, and even some muslims that I know, but I never heard anything that made me scared to be a Catholic like this does.

I’m actually thinking of discussing the subject with my 15 year old daughter in case she encourters someone who tells her that the form of Catholicism which she practices is an insult to God and needs to be eliminated in the name of Jesus Christ. She goes to school with Hindus, Baptists, Muslims and secular atheists but I never in a million years thought I would have to discuss with her the possiblity of persecution from fellow Catholics.

-Tim-

 

[wasserfall]

I am not aware of any FSSP priest that attends a chrism mass in the USA. They do go and collect oils but they do not attend the mass. Are you aware of any FSSP priest going to a novus ordo chrism mass?

I don’t personally know of any who attend, but I don’t personally know many FSSP priests.
I have heard that some do attend when the bishop insists upon it.

So, my knowledge is pretty much the same as yours.

 

[wasserfall]

Add some language about unleashing an army and scorched earth policy against modernists as was posted in another thread and people seriously start getting nervous.

The quote was “an army for the Church” – that’s nothing to worry about.

As for the other, you’re not a modernist (at least I hope not, modernism is a condemned heresy) so you won’t have a problem there either.

 

[JReducation]

The quote was “an army for the Church” – that’s nothing to worry about.

As for the other, you’re not a modernist (at least I hope not, modernism is a condemned heresy) so you won’t have a problem there either.

But I think that Tim makes a good point. The language is problematic, because it does not make the Trads sound very brotherly. It makes them sound belligerent and almost as if they’re out to get even once their regularized. It sounds too much like, “Wait 'til we’re in control. You’ll see.”

In the Trad mind, he’s using allegory. In the ears of his audience, it’s intimidation. If you ask any good ambassador, he or she will tell you that perceptions are more important than words.

Bishop Fellay alludes to this in his letter when he tells his confreres that they’re sounding as bad or worse than the radical liberals who has lost faith in Christ and feel that they have to evenhandedly save the the Church. It’s not what they’re thinking. It’s the perception that others get. That’s what he’s trying to correct.

This kind of language does the same thing. It creates a perception that is not necessarily the one that the Trad movement wants to give. It really needs to speak in words that people use in daily life so as to sound more fraternal and less antagonistic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TimothyH]

The quote was “an army for the Church” – that’s nothing to worry about.

As for the other, you’re not a modernist (at least I hope not, modernism is a condemned heresy) so you won’t have a problem there either.

With all due respect, your pronouncement that I am not a modernist is hardly consolation.

From my perspective, it is believed by some that everyone who attends the OF regularly and does not prefer the EF is a modernist and that there should be some soft of scorched earth policy against them.

You are seriously scaring people. I don’t know if you realize that.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

With all due respect, your pronouncement that I am not a modernist is hardly consolation.

From my perspective, it is believed by some that everyone who attends the OF regularly and does not prefer the EF is a modernist and that there should be some soft of scorched earth policy against them.

You are seriously scaring people. I don’t know if you realize that.

-Tim-

I think that one of the people who is being frightened is Bishop Fellay himself. There is a sense of urgency in his message. One gets the impression that he and the Holy Father agree that this reconciliation has to happen now, before this movement is totally out of control.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

With all due respect, your pronouncement that I am not a modernist is hardly consolation.

From my perspective, it is believed by some that everyone who attends the OF regularly and does not prefer the EF is a modernist and that there should be some soft of scorched earth policy against them.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone refer to any layperson as a modernist, even on “other” internet discussion forums. The word is usually reserved for bishops. (I don’t condone that, but that is my observation as to how it is used.)

I don’t know if it will make you feel better but here is what I see out there in internet trad-land:

There is a vocal group of people who will not be satisfied until the new mass is suppressed and the old mass made mandatory for all latin rite priests. These people often question the orthodoxy of all non-SSPX priests. Some of them refer to the SSPX as “the remnant Church”.

Yes, these people are there. However I think that they are far more vocal than they are numerous.

By the way I am pretty sure I have mentioned it before, but I personally don’t go to SSPX chapels, I don’t even know any SSPX priests or regular attendees of SSPX chapels. I am certainly not one of the people described above, so I don’t know why I should be scaring you.

To understand the traditionalist mindset, it helps to look back at the situation in the early 70s, especially in Europe. Archbishop Lefebvre had started his seminary and was forming the seminarians just as he himself had been formed. The French bishops of that time were (for some reason) outraged that the Archbishop was being permitted to do this, and they demanded a visitation. A visitation was arranged and, although the visitors seems to find the seminary acceptable, they expressed some theological opinions that horrified the seminarians and Archbishop Lefebvre, such as: truth is culturally and temporally relative, it is an open question whether Jesus physically rose from the dead, the ordination of women is inevitable, all religions are equally acceptable to God, and so on.

This is what they are resisting. It is easy for us to say now: well, of course this is all unorthodox and no right minded Catholic would agree with these propositions, but they are convinced that the majority of the worlds bishops hold these propositions to be true, and it is difficult to disabuse them of that notion because, among other things, very few of the bishops are willing to make it crystal clear that it isn’t the case by publicly denouncing such errors.

Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, SSPX, recently gave a talk where he spoke about this and said that the first time the SSPX recognized that maybe the above was not the prevailing opinion in the Vatican curia, was in 2005 when Pope Benedict denounced the hermeneutic of rupture and introduced the idea of the hermeneutic of reform. He (Fr. Pfluger) said (paraphrased): “Of course there was a rupture. Everybody believed there was a rupture. We saw the rupture, theologians said there was a rupture, bishops preached the rupture, but then the Pope suddenly appeared and said: Stop! there wasn’t a rupture! The council was not a moment of rupture, it was a moment of reform”

Fr. Pfluger said that was what caused the leadership of the SSPX to begin to consider the possibility of talking to the Holy See. Up until that, the SSPX had just written off any hope of discussions, much less regularization.

So the leadership has been moving along a path since 2005, but a lot of it has been out of the sight of the laity and they have been taught for so many years to resist, resist, resist. It is going to be difficult for them to change.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone refer to any layperson as a modernist, even on “other” internet discussion forums. The word is usually reserved for bishops. (I don’t condone that, but that is my observation as to how it is used.)

I don’t know if it will make you feel better but here is what I see out there in internet trad-land:

There is a vocal group of people who will not be satisfied until the new mass is suppressed and the old mass made mandatory for all latin rite priests. These people often question the orthodoxy of all non-SSPX priests. Some of them refer to the SSPX as “the remnant Church”.

Yes, these people are there. However I think that they are far more vocal than they are numerous.

By the way I am pretty sure I have mentioned it before, but I personally don’t go to SSPX chapels, I don’t even know any SSPX priests or regular attendees of SSPX chapels. I am certainly not one of the people described above, so I don’t know why I should be scaring you.

To understand the traditionalist mindset, it helps to look back at the situation in the early 70s, especially in Europe. Archbishop Lefebvre had started his seminary and was forming the seminarians just as he himself had been formed. The French bishops of that time were (for some reason) outraged that the Archbishop was being permitted to do this, and they demanded a visitation. A visitation was arranged and, although the visitors seems to find the seminary acceptable, they expressed some theological opinions that horrified the seminarians and Archbishop Lefebvre, such as: truth is culturally and temporally relative, it is an open question whether Jesus physically rose from the dead, the ordination of women is inevitable, all religions are equally acceptable to God, and so on.

This is what they are resisting. It is easy for us to say now: well, of course this is all unorthodox and no right minded Catholic would agree with these propositions, but they are convinced that the majority of the worlds bishops hold these propositions to be true, and it is difficult to disabuse them of that notion because, among other things, very few of the bishops are willing to make it crystal clear that it isn’t the case by publicly denouncing such errors.

Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, SSPX, recently gave a talk where he spoke about this and said that the first time the SSPX recognized that maybe the above was not the prevailing opinion in the Vatican curia, was in 2005 when Pope Benedict denounced the hermeneutic of rupture and introduced the idea of the hermeneutic of reform. He (Fr. Pfluger) said (paraphrased): “Of course there was a rupture. Everybody believed there was a rupture. We saw the rupture, theologians said there was a rupture, bishops preached the rupture, but then the Pope suddenly appeared and said: Stop! there wasn’t a rupture! The council was not a moment of rupture, it was a moment of reform”

Fr. Pfluger said that was what caused the leadership of the SSPX to begin to consider the possibility of talking to the Holy See. Up until that, the SSPX had just written off any hope of discussions, much less regularization.

So the leadership has been moving along a path since 2005, but a lot of it has been out of the sight of the laity and they have been taught for so many years to resist, resist, resist. It is going to be difficult for them to change.

In other words, you’re saying that they created a monster. I can believe that. I think it was a product of the time. The mainstream bishops did the same thing on the other side. The gave so much slack in the hopes of bringing people on board who were on the fringe that they too created a monster.

Now we have the extreme liberals and the extreme trads and the rest of us caught in the middle. Both extremes are equally frightening, because neither is really interested in holiness. They are interested in preserving their status quo.

When I look at how they speak about others, either side, it’s stunning. I ask myself, “How can someone who wants to be another Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, John Bosco or Vincent de Paul be so far of the mark?” I can’t imagine any of these folks every speaking with as much hatred and ugliness as these folks on the ends speak. I believe that they’re in for a rude awakening, if their hearts and words don’t soften.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Like]

The split is no surprise. The question is whether the split will be gentlemanly or will there be fireworks.

What they will be asked to give up is not their customs, but their rhetoric.

I heard from one of them that they have also been told to droop the rhetoric about the Jews and the Holocaust. They must accept the Vatican’s position. I believe this happened at the time of the Williamson issue. Bishop Fellay told them to back down, because the Holy Father was not happy. This remains a standing order, which makes some of them very unhappy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Let us be frank and realistic:

Considering the situation of the Bishops in respect to effective control of the Society, if all, some or one of them does choose not to go along with it, he (the dissenting bishop(s)) will almost be forced to make “fireworks”.

The reason for this is, as I alluded to, the reality of effective control of the Society. +Fellay has it; the others do not. If there is but a whimper or something like, “Well, that’s okay, it’s within your rights to do this” then the splitting bishop will have to start practically from scratch. Hardly a promising or an easy task.

This will require a lot of labour, energy, fundraising and the like and - to be frank - people are more likely to open their wallets and dedicate their time and energy to a fireworks show rather than for, say, a “gentlemanly” policy.

But of course, we shall have to wait and see!

I made a post on another thread a few days ago, asking if anyone subscribed to Bishop Williamson’s newsletter “Eleison Comments” of which I don’t believe anyone responded.

Anyway, I think there will be at the very least this one Bishop (Williamson), who will not go along with Bishop Fellay. Below is just one of his newsletters.

12 May 2012
FAITH KILLERS

But if Rome offers the Society of St Pius X all that it wants, why should the SSPX still refuse ? Apparently there are Catholics still believing that if a practical agreement fulfilled all the SSPX’s practical demands, it should be accepted. So why not ? Because the SSPX was brought into existence by Archbishop Lefebvre not for its own sake, but for the sake of the true Catholic Faith, endangered by Vatican II as it has never been endangered before. But let us see here why the Newchurch authorities will seek any practical agreement as much as the SSPX must refuse it.

The reason is because the Newchurch is subjectivist, and any merely practical agreement implies that subjectivism is true. According to the new Conciliar religion, dogmas of Faith are not objective truths but symbols that serve subjective needs (Pascendi, 11-13, 21). For instance if my psychological insecurity is calmed by the conviction that God became man, then for me the Incarnation is true, in the only sense of the word “true”. So if Traditionalists have their need of the old religion, then that is what is true for them, and one can even admire how they cling to their truth. But in justice they must agree to let us Romans have our Conciliar truth, and if they cannot make that concession, then they are insufferably arrogant and intolerant, and we cannot allow such divisiveness within our Church of luv.

Thus Neo-modernist Rome would be happy with any practical agreement by which the SSPX would even only implicitly renounce its radical claim to the universality and obligation of “its” truths. On the contrary the SSPX cannot be happy with any agreement that in an action speaking louder than words would deny the objectivity of “its” religion of 20 centuries. It is not “its” religion at all. To come to an agreement with subjectivists, I have to stop insisting on objectivity. To insist on objectivity, I cannot accept any terms at all proposed by subjectivists, unless they renounce their subjectivism.

These Romans are doing no such thing. Yet another proof of their crusading insistence upon their new religion came in the form of their recent “Note on the conclusions of the canonical visit to the Institute of the Good Shepherd” in France. Readers will remember that this Institute was one of several founded after the Council to enable Traditional Catholicism to be practised under Roman authority. Rome can wait for a few years before closing in, to make sure that the poor fish is well on the hook, but then -

The “Note” requires that Vatican II and the 1992 Catechism of the Newchurch must be included in Institute studies. The Institute must insist on the “hermeneutic of renewal in continuity”, and it must stop treating the Tridentine rite of Mass as its “exclusive” rite of Mass. The Institute must enter into official diocesan life with a “spirit of communion”. In other words, the Traditional Institute must stop being so Traditional if it wants to belong to the Newchurch. What else did the Institute expect ? To keep to Tradition, it would have to get back out from under the Newchurch’s authority. What chance is there of that ? They wanted to be swallowed by the Conciliar monster. Now it is digesting them.

So why, in Heaven’s name, would it be any different with the SSPX ? Rome’s temptation may be rejected this time round by the SSPX, but let us be under no illusions: the subjectivists will be back and back and back to get rid of that objective truth and objective Faith which constitute a standing
rebuke to their criminal nonsense.

Kyrie eleison.
Richard N. Williamson

 

[JReducation]

I made a post on another thread a few days ago, asking if anyone subscribed to Bishop Williamson’s newsletter “Eleison Comments” of which I don’t believe anyone responded.

Anyway, I think there will be at the very least this one Bishop (Williamson), who will not go along with Bishop Fellay. Below is just one of his newsletters.

12 May 2012
FAITH KILLERS

But if Rome offers the Society of St Pius X all that it wants, why should the SSPX still refuse ? Apparently there are Catholics still believing that if a practical agreement fulfilled all the SSPX’s practical demands, it should be accepted. So why not ? Because the SSPX was brought into existence by Archbishop Lefebvre not for its own sake, but for the sake of the true Catholic Faith, endangered by Vatican II as it has never been endangered before. But let us see here why the Newchurch authorities will seek any practical agreement as much as the SSPX must refuse it.

The reason is because the Newchurch is subjectivist, and any merely practical agreement implies that subjectivism is true. According to the new Conciliar religion, dogmas of Faith are not objective truths but symbols that serve subjective needs (Pascendi, 11-13, 21). For instance if my psychological insecurity is calmed by the conviction that God became man, then for me the Incarnation is true, in the only sense of the word “true”. So if Traditionalists have their need of the old religion, then that is what is true for them, and one can even admire how they cling to their truth. But in justice they must agree to let us Romans have our Conciliar truth, and if they cannot make that concession, then they are insufferably arrogant and intolerant, and we cannot allow such divisiveness within our Church of luv.

Thus Neo-modernist Rome would be happy with any practical agreement by which the SSPX would even only implicitly renounce its radical claim to the universality and obligation of “its” truths. On the contrary the SSPX cannot be happy with any agreement that in an action speaking louder than words would deny the objectivity of “its” religion of 20 centuries. It is not “its” religion at all. To come to an agreement with subjectivists, I have to stop insisting on objectivity. To insist on objectivity, I cannot accept any terms at all proposed by subjectivists, unless they renounce their subjectivism.

These Romans are doing no such thing. Yet another proof of their crusading insistence upon their new religion came in the form of their recent “Note on the conclusions of the canonical visit to the Institute of the Good Shepherd” in France. Readers will remember that this Institute was one of several founded after the Council to enable Traditional Catholicism to be practised under Roman authority. Rome can wait for a few years before closing in, to make sure that the poor fish is well on the hook, but then -

The “Note” requires that Vatican II and the 1992 Catechism of the Newchurch must be included in Institute studies. The Institute must insist on the “hermeneutic of renewal in continuity”, and it must stop treating the Tridentine rite of Mass as its “exclusive” rite of Mass. The Institute must enter into official diocesan life with a “spirit of communion”. In other words, the Traditional Institute must stop being so Traditional if it wants to belong to the Newchurch. What else did the Institute expect ? To keep to Tradition, it would have to get back out from under the Newchurch’s authority. What chance is there of that ? They wanted to be swallowed by the Conciliar monster. Now it is digesting them.

So why, in Heaven’s name, would it be any different with the SSPX ? Rome’s temptation may be rejected this time round by the SSPX, but let us be under no illusions: the subjectivists will be back and back and back to get rid of that objective truth and objective Faith which constitute a standing
rebuke to their criminal nonsense.

Kyrie eleison.
Richard N. Williamson

This is a red flag and people who don’t see it as such are naive or don’t care about anything but their position. Here we have a superior general who has said that they’re going forward with this agreement with the Vatican. Then we have a subordinate saying that they are not going forward and rallying the troops to go in the opposite direction.

With all due respect to the bishop, I have a very difficult time believing the credibility of someone who promises obedience to a superior only when the superior agrees with him. Maybe I live in a bubble. If I do, then I thank God and Francis of Assisi for creating it.

In my world, if the superior says, 'We’re going to the Arctic Circle in Speedos," after he passes the psychological examination, , we put on our Speedos and we go to the Arctic Circle. Those who still refuse to obey are dismissed and excommunicated. There is no tolerance for insubordination and no tolerance for those who undermine the superior general. That kind of disobedience raises all kinds of questions about the credibility of promises and vows of obedience.

This is the problem that the leadership of the LCWR is facing, disobedience that sends red flags. If Bishop Fellay bends to Bishop Williamson, the Society has bigger problems than Modernism. It has a coup d’état on its hands.

If there is something in their statutes that Bishop Fellay should have done and did not do, then it’s justifiable to resist, because a superior must govern according to the statutes. He cannot command what he does not have a legal right to command. But Bishop Williamson is not saying that there has been a violation of the proper law of the SSPX.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Like]

This is a red flag and people who don’t see it as such are naive or don’t care about anything but their position. Here we have a superior general who has said that they’re going forward with this agreement with the Vatican. Then we have a subordinate saying that they are not going forward and rallying the troops to go in the opposite direction.

With all due respect to the bishop, I have a very difficult time believing the credibility of someone who promises obedience to a superior only when the superior agrees with him. Maybe I live in a bubble. If I do, then I thank God and Francis of Assisi for creating it.

In my world, if the superior says, 'We’re going to the Arctic Circle in Speedos," after he passes the psychological examination, , we put on our Speedos and we go to the Arctic Circle. Those who still refuse to obey are dismissed and excommunicated. There is no tolerance for insubordination and no tolerance for those who undermine the superior general. That kind of disobedience raises all kinds of questions about the credibility of promises and vows of obedience.

This is the problem that the leadership of the LCWR is facing, disobedience that sends red flags. If Bishop Fellay bends to Bishop Williamson, the Society has bigger problems than Modernism. It has a coup d’état on its hands.

If there is something in their statutes that Bishop Fellay should have done and did not do, then it’s justifiable to resist, because a superior must govern according to the statutes. He cannot command what he does not have a legal right to command. But Bishop Williamson is not saying that there has been a violation of the proper law of the SSPX.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I totally agree with you Bro. Jay. Some of his other newsletters are much worst than this one.

I pray very much that he does not pull many priests & laity with him but, there’s no doubt he does have his following.

 

[JustaServant]

I loved this line.
**
You see the dangers, the plots, the difficulties, but you no longer see the assistance of grace and of the Holy Ghost.**

CAF should make this into a banner on the TC Forum. This statement is so similar to many made by St. Francis, St. Clare and St. Anthony to the friars and nuns every time they pointed their finger at some failing in the Church.

Br. JR, FFV

I read the letter this morning and was also impressed with this part of the letter.
Negativity only leads into more darkness, and unless they (the Bishops) cleary see God’s working ***within the darkness *** they will remain in the dark.
Take it from a former Baptist, that which is born of division will endlessly divide until it is no more.
Bishop Fellay can obviously see God working and we all need to pray for him.
I wish my dad had lived to see this.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

Then how about FSPJXXIII?

 

[giuseppeTO]

As you can imagine, the publication of these private messages has caused a considerable amount of outrage among both the clergy and the laity. The unfortunate part is that the details of the negotiations are not public, but many have taken a hard stand against them sight unseen. For many in the SSPX, there is years of bitterness and hurt that will only be overcome through Our Lord’s healing grace

Although there will certainly be those who will refuse to abide by a reconciliation, I would caution that just because the Bishops urged against signing, they have not stated that they would not abide by the decision of the Superior General. They could very easily have given that ultimatum in their joint letter.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

She goes to school with Hindus, Baptists, Muslims and secular atheists but I never in a million years thought I would have to discuss with her the possiblity of persecution from fellow Catholics.

I understand what you are saying, and it is unfortunate. I don’t bring this up to downplay your situation at all, but this is a similar situation for many of the laity that attend SSPX chapels. Some may say that is their own fault for going to SSPX chapels, but the fact remains that many Catholics attack them for the Catholic practices.

I pray that your daughter never has to experience such discord.

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

I read the letter this morning and was also impressed with this part of the letter.
Negativity only leads into more darkness, and unless they (the Bishops) cleary see God’s working ***within the darkness *** they will remain in the dark.
Take it from a former Baptist, that which is born of division will endlessly divide until it is no more.
Bishop Fellay can obviously see God working and we all need to pray for him.
I wish my dad had lived to see this.

I liked the letter. That’s the part that threw me off. I have read messages and comments on blogs and threads where people are saying that the Bishop owes them an explanation. I don’t see what more there is to explain, unless he gets into confidential material, which would be inappropriate. He has explained why he made the decision to go forward and that he trusts the Holy Father’s offer. What else is a superior general supposed to say?

I know some people have said to me that I have to understand that many lay people made many sacrifices to follow the SSPX. I’m sure some must have made great financial sacrifices as well, not just traveling across three states to get to an SSPX mass. This has happened in the past as well with different reform movements and as things change, the leaders also change.

If the SSPX is truly coming in and if Bishop Fellay is going to remain in office as the superior general and maybe the prelate as well, there are going to be many things that he will be deciding without explaining, because there are many things that involve confidential conversations or confidential agreements. That’s just the nature of his job. He’s not going to be able to tell all, especially if there is an agreement between both sides to not say anything until the time is right. He has to honor his end as long as their honoring their end.

He has good reason to be upset about the leak. Whoever did that, if they did it deliberately, was very wrong to do so. It causes a mess when people get pieces of a picture, which is what the letters contain.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

There are many many sad things about Bishop Williamson’s comments, as quoted above (and as have appeared over the past weeks). One I would like to point out is that Archbishop Lefebvre himself argued for an “experiment of Tradition.” His argument was that if the church is trying this, that, and other, why not try “tradition.” Bishop Williamson seems to be rejecting this specific idea here, going counter to his founder’s thoughts.

I don’t think there is anyway Bishop Williamson will reconcile. It makes me sad, as all disunity does, but part of me thinks that if the society loses some of these unreasonable hard-liners, people who act (as Bishop Fellay pointed out) as sedevacantists, it might be a good thing overall. But I pray for all to be reconciled, for all to submit to the Roman Pontiff.

• PAX