SSPX Update - Redux

[numealinesimpet]

The Holy Father’s work is far more difficult and delicate than the “man in the pew” would often realise. The Vatican is the oldest living bureaucracy in the world, and the subtlest.
My formatting.

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm
Bishop Fellay demonstrated the application of this “principle of action” in the case of the Society through several examples, most of which have never been previously publicized.
…
The third example His Excellency relayed was in connection with the ordinations scheduled to take place in Germany in March 2009. As reported in The Remnant at the time, the bishops of Germany were capitalizing on the media’s attempt to sabotage the Holy Father’s lifting of the SSPX decree of excommunication and a then-recent interview of Bishop Williamson (“coincidentally” released on the eve of the announcement of the Holy Father’s historic decision). As previously reported in The Remnant, the Holy See contacted Bishop Fellay to request that the [SSPX] ordinations be moved to another location in order to ease tensions between the Holy See and the German bishops. In his address to the Angelus conference, Bishop Fellay revealed further details of this extraordinary intervention.
The Vatican asked Bishop Fellay to move the ordinations out of the jurisdiction of the German bishops. If Bishop Fellay would do so, the Vatican Cardinal bargained, the Society “would be legally recognized until Easter.” This was to cover the two-week period in which the ordinations would occur. Bishop Fellay explained that he had asked the Cardinal why this was being requested since, according to a recent document of the Secretary of State, the SSPX does not “even exist legally.” The Cardinal replied that “the Pope does not believe that.”
As we know, Bishop Fellay did comply with the Vatican request to move the ordinations (demonstrating once again his willingness to obey the Pope). There was a collective gasp in the room when His Excellency told this story.
The discussions that evening including plenty of questions as to whether we had all misheard or misunderstood what His Excellency had said earlier that day: “Did he really mean the Vatican acknowledged the legal existence of the Society for two weeks last March?” When I later spoke personally with His Excellency, I repeated his own words back to him from my notes and asked him if he had misspoken or if I had misheard him. He said “That is what I said, you heard me correctly.” I then asked: “What does that mean, since there is no precedent for such a statement? How can you be legal for two weeks and then illegal again?” He shrugged his shoulders and said that this is what the Cardinal had said.
Ah, to live in interesting times!
How can we interpret this incident? First, we have a Cardinal in the Vatican claiming that the Pope does not believe the assertions of a document appearing to come from an official organ in the Vatican. The [nume: unsigned] document released by the Secretary of State says the Society does not exist in the Church, and yet the Pope believes the Society does. The Vatican then agrees to temporarily recognize the Society in exchange for a change in venue for a SSPX ordination.*** How seriously does the Pope take this lack of legal recognition when it can be offered thus as a mere bargaining chip?***

 

[numealinesimpet]

Sorry, I pasted this wrongly: wouldn’t open properly. Here it is again:

As Cdls Ottaviani and Bacci noted to Pope Paul VI in the document generally known as ‘The Ottaviani Intervention’ in 1969 fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html ], the situation arising since the close of the Second Vatican Council (whose validity they never questioned) was giving rise to ‘an agonising crisis of conscience’.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I am hardly happy to hear that we have dropped off in attendance in the same manner as churches who do not have the grace which comes from the sacraments.

I agree its better to get it out in the open so that it can be addressed and move on.

Liturgical abuse is not a matter of opinion, not remotely so. There are things which are objectively right and things which are objectively wrong in the liturgy. Are there things which people think are abuses which are not? Of course. However, that does not change the objectivity of what is correct and proper in the liturgy. Furthermore, if it were not a widespread issue, which it is, the Vatican would not be taking steps such as this: zenit.org/article-36355?l=english

I didn’t blame it on VII. In fact, if you look at my follow on post, you will see that I specifically state that many of these issues were already there, under the surface, well before the council took place.

I disagree, and so do many others. Either everyone who feels that way is completely crazy, or you are wrong. I am no supporter of the SSPX or Voris.

Agreed, that is certainly a crisis. However, that does not make it the only one.

Agreed. I don’t think the SSPX is going to save much of anything. In fact, I think they will continue to splinter and fraction over the years, particular if part of them do reconcile with the Holy See, or once Bishop Fellay passes on. There are many “real Catholics” as you describe it. It is hardly wrong to be concerned that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is being celebrated correctly and reverently. Should people pray more? Of course, me first among them. However, to suggest that the people on this forum who particulate in the prayer thread rather than dialogue in other fashions are the "real Catholics’ is insulting and entirely incorrect. There are many Catholics who go out of their way to pray for and support people, to include their priests, who also see things which concern them from time to time and, since few in their parish care one way or the other, see CAF as an outlet where they can express their situation or get a question answered. Could things be handled more charitably at times? Of course. That doesn’t change the fact that using this forum in that manner is a worthwhile and acceptable activity.

And therein lies the problem. When you dismiss people’s concerns which they believe are real as a “so-called crisis” or as being “manufactured” then you have immediately shut down any potential for common understanding or dialogue. Its real to them, or they would not be bringing it up. Telling them its not real isn’t going to fix anything. In fact, dismissing the concerns of people out of hand contributes greatly to people becoming disillusioned and joining groups such as the SSPX. I’m not sure who the “they” you are speaking of here is, but since you responded to me when saying it, I assume that I am included. To clear things up, I hardly consider myself better than anyone else. I am a lowly sinner, hence my very frequent attendance at the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Personally, I prefer English, since I actually understand it. But that’s just me.

Tnx for this posting,** jwinch2**. For many years I have recommended CAF as a place where a real attempt is made to discuss some difficult and painful issues fairly - especially the SSPX - while maintaining absolute fidelity to The Church. I do not envy the task of the Moderators. This is almost the only place where I have not either been summarily thrown off the forum for so much as daring to suggest that the SSPX have a fair case to make - or else where I am merely preaching to the converted. That is fun and comforting, but how far does it go towards healing the present hurts in the Church?

Yes, Vatican II merely pseudo-legitimised an underground rebellion which had actually been simmering along for some centuries. And there were definite faults with the ‘mainstream’ Church - a lack of charity in many places and directions - which were part of what gave the more over-optimistic and naive statements of Vatican II their credibility.

 

[pnewton]

On the question of Jurisdiction …
Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay … set the context by describing the Vatican’s policy as a process of “contradictions.” He characterized the recent history of the relations as a process of saying one thing publicly but having to speak and act differently in practical application. He seemed to be preparing his listeners to expect this dynamic of contradiction to continue, at least for the foreseeable future… With specific references to the Society, Bishop Fellay explained that the Holy See has been pursuing a two-pronged policy – an official de jure policy contradicted by de facto actions

On the dynamics of contradictions.

Policy cannot be derived based on contradictions in practice. This is a problem I see in my workplace. One person will have some special need and one time. Through one supervisor, he will receive an answer and action may be taken contrary to policy. This is one function of a supervisor. If policy is countermanded often, eventually someone will come along that does not like the policy and say they don’t understand why they can not have an exception, as it occurs “all the time.” The complaint is always that we are inconsistent.

We also have those difficult people that focus on every contradition they see and use this as a reason to violate any rule the wish. Then when called on it, the complaint is always that their supervisors are always contradicting themselves. Such a defense, besides lacking logic, comes across as whiney and weak. Written policy exists for a reason.

Thus, when I hear this same line of reason used by Bp. Fellay, if comes across more as justification, as in working backward from a desired answer to some sort of excuse, rather than logic. The Church is pastoral. The Church is authoritative. Pastoral exercise will never diminish authority, except in the eyes of those that want it to.

 

[pnewton]

And therein lies the problem. When you dismiss people’s concerns which they believe are real as a “so-called crisis” or as being “manufactured” then you have immediately shut down any potential for common understanding or dialogue. Its real to them,…

I think the last thing you said was key. It is real to them. The statement was made that this emergency is objective(Post 600*), * as it would need to be to justify such extreme measures.

No one’s concerns or needs should be dismissed. However, it is fair to call into question actions made against the authority of the Church based on those concerns.

 

[numealinesimpet]

On the dynamics of contradictions.

Policy cannot be derived based on contradictions in practice. This is a problem I see in my workplace. One person will have some special need and one time. Through one supervisor, he will receive an answer and action may be taken contrary to policy. This is one function of a supervisor. If policy is countermanded often, eventually someone will come along that does not like the policy and say they don’t understand why they can not have an exception, as it occurs “all the time.” The complaint is always that we are inconsistent.

We also have those difficult people that focus on every contradition they see and use this as a reason to violate any rule the wish. Then when called on it, the complaint is always that their supervisors are always contradicting themselves. Such a defense, besides lacking logic, comes across as whiney and weak. Written policy exists for a reason.

Thus, when I hear this same line of reason used by Bp. Fellay, if comes across more as justification, as in working backward from a desired answer to some sort of excuse, rather than logic. The Church is pastoral. The Church is authoritative. Pastoral exercise will never diminish authority, except in the eyes of those that want it to.

St Robert Bellarmine wrote in the 16th century, “Let the legislator speak clearly if he wishes to be obeyed”.
** pnewton**, if I am not mistaken, I detect in your posting an imputation of motives to Bp Fellay to which I do not subscribe. He is either a liar or is relating what has happened.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I think the last thing you said was key. It is real to them. The statement was made that this emergency is objective(Post 600*), * as it would need to be to justify such extreme measures.

No one’s concerns or needs should be dismissed. However, it is fair to call into question actions made against the authority of the Church based on those concerns.

When I was in my 20s I respected the Catholic Church not least because she was willing to take criticisms head on and to respond without fear or favour. I continue to salute those in positions of power within the Church who do so. Unfortunately, they are a much smaller percentage than they were 50 years ago. However, the SSPX leadership is among the best of them.

 

[Melchior_1]

You can post what you want, but at the end of the day, if the Pope says that Canon Law does not apply then it doesn’t apply. If he says that the crisis in the Church does not warrant the actions you want to take, it does not warrant the actions you want to take. If he says you have no faculties, you have no faculties. This is the case if you are traditional, modernist, liberal, man, woman, small rodents, inanimate carbon rod. It doesn’t matter.

He has the keys, and the power to bind on Earth as it is in Heaven,

By acting in the fashion he did to protect tradition (lowercase “t”, His Grace Lefebvre acted in a Protestant fashion. Whereas those who have an understanding that the Pope has the keys are acting in a traditional fashion.

Is there problems? No one will deny there are problems. Did the problems warrant breaking Canon Law, getting yourself excommunicated and dying separated from the Church? No, because the Pope, who has the keys, said so.

Did Vatican II cause the problems? No, Vatican II is a scapegoat. Used by modernists to push their agenda, they use it to justify their rebellion against the Church. Used by traditionalists to push their agenda, they use it to decry anything that they feel is a slight against them and their practices.

Is there a crisis? One could say that yes, there are several things that could be described as a "crisis:. However as defined by the Successor of Peter, the crisis is not grave enough to warrant the actions (and continued actions) of the SSPX. This makes sense to me for one very simple reason; you cannot fight disobedience to a just law and just authority with more disobedience. The law is just, the man who has the keys is also just.

Something to consider is that when people say “they have emergency jurisdiction” they place themselves in square opposition to the Chief Canon Lawyer, the Pope himself. You are denying the Pope, denying his authority, denying Matthew 16, denying that he has the keys, denying he has the power to bind and loose. I’m sorry, but that is a very modernist outlook to have.

I can understand why people are upset. I can understand why people feel attacked. I can also understand the attitude of “what about all these other bad people!” One of the differences between those “other bad people” and the SSPX is that some of us expect better and more from the SSPX and other traditionalists. We expect fidelity to the Pope, because that’s a traditional thing. We expect licit Sacraments, including valid confessions, because we don’t think any traditionalist would want illicit acts.

The SSPX, and self-styled traditionalists can speak until their ears turn blue. But the proof is in the pudding; stop paying lip service and come all the way home. Get out of the shoe foyer and enter the living room. Stop saying you respect the Pope on one hand, then turn around and slam him, the Form he celebrates, the Catechism he helped put together, saying invalid confession, performing illicit ordinations. I’d even say stop looking at everyone like they are the enemy. Running off and saying that anyone who disagrees with you (such as liking the Mass in the vernacular or receiving Communion in the Hand) is a modernist doesn’t help matters. Threatening to call someone’s Bishop because you don’t like how they said things and because they’re making it difficult to have free reign to bash Vatican II, the Ordinary Form, and our current Pope doesn’t help either.

It’s the same thing for the SSPX as it is with modernists groups; come home and listen to the man who has the keys.

 

[JReducation]

Many of us see some of the issues that concern the SSPX. However, as Pope Paul VI and Archbishop DiNoia have said, the problem is aggravated when the authorities of the SSPX speak to Rome as if they have a mission to correct problems outside of the SSPX. The truth is that the people responsible for dealing with these problems are the pope and his dicasteries along with the college of bishops. No one institute, religious or of apostolic life has been assigned to do this and it would not be appropriate to do so. That would be abdicating responsibility.

When an institute assumes the authority to denounce and correct everyone else, there is a positive and a negative. The positive is that if you denounce or report things to the proper authorities, it’s helpful. Bishops and pope are not seers, not most of them. They don’t know every detail that happens around them and much less miles away.

However, when you publicly correct others who are your equals or even your superiors, that’s a problem. The message there is that you’re taking charge. That steps on a lot of toes, which is the first negative. The second negative is that others are wondering why they have to explain themselves to you or submit to your evaluation of them and their activities. When this happens, the point that you were addressing gets lost in the process. Now, people are focusing on your audacity rather than on the problem that you started to address.

According to Bishop Fellay, one of the requirements that the Vatican makes for regularization is that the SSPX not comment to the laity or the media and that it stop correcting others. If I understood Bishop Fellay correctly, he said that they could not comply with this, along with several other things.

In can see two sides here. This is common. It’s not Vatican vs SSPX problem. On the one hand, people believe that you should bring things out into the open, deal with it and move along. On the other hand, the problem is that rarely does it happen that way. When things are made too public, everyone takes their turn at giving it a spin. Then you spend the next century responding to the spins. It makes sense not to make public comments and discuss concerns privately.

That’s just my opinion. It’s neither dogma nor law.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I disagree, and so do many others. Either everyone who feels that way is completely crazy, or you are wrong.

Again, an argument couched in extremes. You don’t have to be “completely crazy” to have been sold a bill of goods by people intent on advancing their own agenda by disseminating bad information, spinning a few facts, or using inflammatory rhetoric.

Am I wrong? Not IMO, of course, because to me the Church isn’t just something people hanging around on message boards belong to. There are varieties of critical situations, in China most prominently. This other thing, this sort of vague but constantly expressed anxiety that the Pope is less Catholic than the laity or we’ll all fall into Hell if some priest someplace allows a communion service during the week, not very critical, just fear and the devil whispering in everyone’s ears.

And therein lies the problem. When you dismiss people’s concerns which they believe are real as a “so-called crisis” or as being “manufactured” then you have immediately shut down any potential for common understanding or dialogue. Its real to them, or they would not be bringing it up

Having no authority whatsoever, it is impossible for me to “shut-down” dialogue. In fact, from the length of your response, I’d say some dialogue has been vigorously stimulated.

You seem, from some of your remarks, to have taken what I wrote personally or as directed at you, somehow. This wasn’t in my mind at all. Sorry if you were personally offended by any presumed attack.

 

[numealinesimpet]

You can post what you want,

But all I want is for the truth to prevail.

but at the end of the day, if the Pope says that Canon Law does not apply then it doesn’t apply.

Disagree. The Law is an objective thing. The Pope can amend the law, but he cannot contradict the fact of the existing law. To do so would be to offend against honesty and Natural Justice. Neither is he in control of objective facts. if I cannot find a parish or school that teaches the Catholic Faith except an SSPX institution, then I can’t.

If he says that the crisis in the Church does not warrant the actions you want to take, it does not warrant the actions you want to take.

Not so. This is not good theology, good history, nor good common sense.

If he says you have no faculties, you have no faculties.

Where does the Pope say this?

This is the case if you are traditional, modernist, liberal, man, woman, small rodents, inanimate carbon rod. It doesn’t matter.

He has the keys, and the power to bind on Earth as it is in Heaven,

Note the cases of S. Athanasius and the Affair of Bp Grosseteste as refutation of this. He has unlimited power to exercise his authority. But he has no mandate to abuse his authority. This also is subject to an objective test. In the 2 cases I have mentioned, this was attempted. I am not accusing the recent popes of anything; I am, with respect, denying your categorical statement. You have to restrict it to ‘the legitimate use of authority’. Vatican II says (somewhere) that the laity have the right - indeed the duty - to stand, even publicly, against an abuse by their religious superiors. This is not to justify Mgr Lefebvre’s actions before an examination of the case, but to affirm that he had every right to present such a case.

By acting in the fashion he did to protect tradition (lowercase “t”, His Grace Lefebvre acted in a Protestant fashion. Whereas those who have an understanding that the Pope has the keys are acting in a traditional fashion.

This argument is invalid because the Faith is an objective thing. It is there in black and white: many of the ‘official’ documents issued after - and during - Vatican II are in word-for-word contradiction with previous stetements issued by popes in the strongest possible fashion. Yet the latest documents never acknowledge this. Every previous document quoted every single source back to the New Testaments, but modern documents quote the NT then skip forward without explanation to Vatican II and afterwards. Don’t take my word for it. These documents are only a click away on your Mac (or, Heaven forbid, your Bill Gates PC … but I digress) …

Are there problems? No one will deny there are problems. Did the problems warrant breaking Canon Law, getting yourself excommunicated and dying separated from the Church? No, because the Pope, who has the keys, said so.

Did Vatican II cause the problems? No, Vatican II is a scapegoat.

In 1983 my (then new) wife and I, alarmed by the wholesale apostacy of so many of our friends’ teenage children, literally sat down with a copy of Vatican II (ed. Fr Flannery O.P.) and a highlighter. We did not study a Learned Study of the Documents of Vatican II - we read the actual documents. I hope all readers will do the same. What we read was a real eye-opener. I still possess that battered volume.

 

[Julia_Mae]

On the other hand, being too dismissive of the state of the World and Church is a folly in the opposite direction. The “Move along nothing to see here” approach will not solve anything either.

I never said that, though. First, you said something about how “most people” worship. But where are most of the Catholics? Not posting on message boards on computers. Do you know what the different African Catholics do for worship? How about Peruvian peasants? Do they think there’s a crisis, as if it were one great big scary Masonic/Modernist/whatever monster?

There are all sorts of issues and having a large groups of laity who have taken this proprietary view of their role in the Church and attacking the Church publicly at every turn is not useful in solving whatever individual issues arise.

My Bishop has directed that we not attend the SSPX even for love of the EF. I will be obedient. He is my Bishop. In a year or so we will have another Bishop and I will obey him as well. No matter what.
I would love to go to the EF, I love it, I long for it. I can’t. If the SSPX were to be regularized I could. end of story.

I’m sorry if this is important to you there is no EF available. I think there is now in most major metro areas, but everyone doesn’t live where they have access.

Did you ask me why a thousand years? I think it might not be that long. It’s really about the Church becoming politically a huge power and that power, of course, leading to corruption. That there are individual or scattered abuses will always be true. But the culture of secretiveness and looking the other way and it being commonly known I think probably only started in the 1200s or so.

I credit the Internet with bringing much of this to light as victims found and supported one another. But I also credit the rise of sedevacantist groups, semi-schismatic groups and the spread of the crisis mentality to the internet and the ability to bring together what were really scattered disgruntled people to become a force for … something I cannot see as beneficial to anyone.

The SSPX has a very big internet presence with a worldwide stage for manipulating their message. Without it, this would be a private matter that would involve a much smaller number of the laity. The only one not trying to manipulate public opinion, seems to be the Vatican.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Many of us see some of the issues that concern the SSPX. However, as Pope Paul VI and Archbishop DiNoia have said, the problem is aggravated when the authorities of the SSPX speak to Rome as if they have a mission to correct problems outside of the SSPX. The truth is that the people responsible for dealing with these problems are the pope and his dicasteries along with the college of bishops. No one institute, religious or of apostolic life has been assigned to do this and it would not be appropriate to do so. That would be abdicating responsibility.

When an institute assumes the authority to denounce and correct everyone else, there is a positive and a negative. The positive is that if you denounce or report things to the proper authorities, it’s helpful. Bishops and pope are not seers, not most of them. They don’t know every detail that happens around them and much less miles away.

However, when you publicly correct others who are your equals or even your superiors, that’s a problem. The message there is that you’re taking charge. That steps on a lot of toes, which is the first negative. The second negative is that others are wondering why they have to explain themselves to you or submit to your evaluation of them and their activities. When this happens, the point that you were addressing gets lost in the process. Now, people are focusing on your audacity rather than on the problem that you started to address.

According to Bishop Fellay, one of the requirements that the Vatican makes for regularization is that the SSPX not comment to the laity or the media and that it stop correcting others. If I understood Bishop Fellay correctly, he said that they could not comply with this, along with several other things.

In can see two sides here. This is common. It’s not Vatican vs SSPX problem. On the one hand, people believe that you should bring things out into the open, deal with it and move along. On the other hand, the problem is that rarely does it happen that way. When things are made too public, everyone takes their turn at giving it a spin. Then you spend the next century responding to the spins. It makes sense not to make public comments and discuss concerns privately.

That’s just my opinion. It’s neither dogma nor law.

Bro JR, my problem with that is the practical one that I have a large family to raise in the Faith. I frankly do not care too much who helps me, so long as they can be shown to be true to the Faith. As soon as our diocese begins to come anywhere near what the SSPX are achieving in that direction, I will be delighted. As they still are not doing so, I see no point in blaming the SSPX for their emergency work : indeed I am eternally grateful to them.

 

[Melchior_1]

Disagree. The Law is an objective thing. The Pope can amend the law, but he cannot contradict the fact of the existing law. To do so would be to offend against honesty and Natural Justice. Neither is he in control of objective facts.

This is not Scriptural, nor is it Traditional. The Pope is the Chief Judge of Canon Law. By the nature of his “office”, he can decide which laws apply and which ones do not. He is a one-man Supreme Court.

This is not good theology, good history, nor good common sense.

It’s the Catholic faith.

Where does the Pope say this?

When he says all the SSPX are suspended, they lose their faculties.

But he has no mandate to abuse his authority.

it is not an abuse of authority when others excommunicate themselves for breaking Canon Law, nor is it an abuse of authority to suspend a society who shows no regard to lawful and just authority.

You have to restrict it to ‘the legitimate use of authority’ Vatican II says (somewhere) that the laity have the right - indeed the duty - to stand, even publicly, against an abuse by their religious superiors. This is not to justify Mgr Lefebvre’s actions, but to affirm that he had every right to present a case.

Of course he had the right to present a case, which he did. What he did not have the right to do was to tell the judge “you’re wrong, I am doing this anyway”. This would not fly with the Supreme Court, and surely would not fly with the Pope.

This argument is invalid because the Faith is an objective thing.

And a part of said faith is to be subject to the authority of the Pope.

It is there in black and white: many of the ‘official’ documents issued after - and during - Vatican II are in word-for-word contradiction with previous stetements issued by popes in the strongest possible fashion. Yet the latest documents never acknowledge this. Every previous document quoted every single source back to the New Testaments, but modern documents quote the NT then skip forward without explanation to Vatican II and afterwards. Don’t take my word for it.

Modern documents shed new light onto existing doctrine. It’s like presenting water as liquid instead of ice.

These documents are only a click away on your Mac (or, Heaven forbid, your Bill Gates PC … but I digress) …

All the modernist hippies use Macs, didn’t you know that?

In 1983 my (then new) wife and I, alarmed by the wholesale apostacy of so many of our friends’ teenage children, literally sat down with a copy of Vatican II (ed. Fr Flannery O.P.) and a highlighter. We did not study a Learned Study of the Documents of Vatican II - we read the actual documents. I hope all readers will do the same. What we read was a real eye-opener. I still possess that battered volume.

Guess what? This very well may have happened anyway, or could have been worse. Two world wars and a sexual revolution sort of impacts a generation of folks.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I would ask longtime followers of CAF to have patience if they have read this story before. .

This story was your response to: where is the crisis in the Church?

Phoenix is not the whole Church. What was the follow-up to this incident, presuming it was reported accurately? It’s 15 years later, how are things in Phoenix?

Do you think if this sort of incident was common throughout the Church that we might hear of it?

Th a e argument against the “Church in crisis” is that there are always isolated incidents of one sort or another. The difference is, nowadays, the internet is scoured for these stories, which a gossipy element in the laity seem always too happy to report, and gathered together as if there is one great mass of liturgical horror all around the world.

There is not.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton, if I am not mistaken, I detect in your posting an imputation of motives to Bp Fellay to which I do not subscribe. He is either a liar or is relating what has happened.

At no point did I question a single fact mentioned. This is an unfounded accusation. It is the *perspective *on facts I question.

BTW - I also did not question the reporting, before that comes up.

The third possibility is that I misread something. I just read again and do not see where anything I said could possibly be construed as saying Bp. Fellay was a liar. As far as imputing motive, I think it safe to say that he has some sort of motive for most actions. I really have no desire to conjecture on any of this.

 

[numealinesimpet]

My Bishop has directed that we not attend the SSPX even for love of the EF. I will be obedient. He is my Bishop. In a year or so we will have another Bishop and I will obey him as well. No matter what.
I would love to go to the EF, I love it, I long for it. I can’t. If the SSPX were to be regularized I could. end of story.

Moore11, I assume you have no children. I remember well, 30 years ago, when (in the context of the rampant abuses in our parish and everywhere else) I pointed to the ceiling and said to my dear young wife, “The Future is not an abstraction! The Future is upstairs crying in her cot!”
Justice deferred is justice denied.

 

[numealinesimpet]

At no point did I question a single fact mentioned. This is an unfounded accusation. …

I didn’t say you questioned facts, pnewton.

 

[pnewton]

I continue to salute those in positions of power within the Church who do so. Unfortunately, they are a much smaller percentage than they were 50 years ago. However, the SSPX leadership is among the best of them.

The SSPX currently has no position within the Church. Hopefully the will reconcile and this will change.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Thus, when I hear this same line of reason used by Bp. Fellay, if comes across more as justification, as in working backward from a desired answer to some sort of excuse, rather than logic. The Church is pastoral. The Church is authoritative. Pastoral exercise will never diminish authority, except in the eyes of those that want it to.

I agree. I also think it’s beyond shocking that he thinks he should “make a case” to the public as if we are able to sit as judges and jurors over what he has chosen to present.

Will these attempts to spread scandal and draft the laity into a battle against their Pope never end?