SSPX update?

[Dee_S]

I can’t help but think that there is a need to make some distinctions here to arrive at the truth. What troubles me the most about this sermon is the the blanket condemnation of things that absolutely require nuancing.

As it stands this does not make sense. The Magisterium is the Church’s official teaching organism. By its nature it cannot impose anything erroneous on Catholics as Bishop Fellay implies by noting that it is ‘of Faith’ (I’m not overly impressed by this translation, by the way). If the ‘innovations’ are of a nature that a Catholic could not accept them in conscience, then the Magisterium would not impose them, end of story.

The problem here is that the SSPX does not know what to make of the Council. The argument “Vat II was just a pastoral council as it didn’t define any new dogmas and so Catholics are not obliged by Faith to accept it” is a worn-out old sock. The council has the same status as other Ecumenical councils and large parts of it are doctrinal even if no new dogma was promulgated. A council spokesman (I’ll dig up the source) stated that the context of the texts would make it clear which parts of the Council documents were doctrinal, requiring assent, and which were not.

Parts of Vat II are problematic, which means they need interpretation and clarification in the light of Tradition, or the Church’s constant teaching on the topics in question. Some parts of the Council are not dogmatic and ***can ***be criticised, even corrected. All this has already been done. One is obliged neither to accept every word from the council at face value without discussion, nor to reject it outright. Basic stuff this.

(my bold)
Thanks for making these distinctions. It’s a pity that Bishop Fellay cannot do the same. It almost seemed like he was, in recent months, giving hope that all would be well in the end. Looks like - probably not, but we can continue to pray for him in particular, that the Holy Spirit guides him at this critical of times

 

[Aramis]

I fear that rapprochement with the SSPX will require them to formally schism first.

I pray I’m wrong about that.

 

[Dee_S]

I came across this sermon of Bishop Fellay’s entitled “Where do we stand with Rome” given at Econe on November 1, 2012 - **ten days before **the sermon previously under discussion of November 11 that he gave at St Nicholas du Chardonnet. It is mind boggling:hypno: in it’s contradictions too numerous to mention here.

Considering the content of the Vatican communique of Sept 14 2011 - his claims in this sermon of confusion & being mislead as to what Rome wanted does not make sense.

VATICAN CITY, 14 SEP 2011 (VIS) - At midday today the Holy See Press Office released the following communique concerning the postion of the Society of St. Pius X:

"On 14 September at the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the congregation and president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’; Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer S.J., secretary of the congregation, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the pontifical commission, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, who was accompanied by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain-Marc Nely, respectively first and second assistant general to the society.

"Following the appeal of 15 December 2008, addressed by the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father decided to remove the excommunication against the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. At the same time, he approved the opening of discussions with the society in order to clarify doctrinal problems and to heal the existing rift.

"In order to put the Holy Father’s instructions into effect, a joint study commission was set up, composed of experts from the Society of St. Pius X and from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in Rome on eight occasions between October 2009 and April 2011. Their discussions, which aimed to identify and study the essential doctrinal difficulties in the controversial issues, had the result of clarifying the positions of the two sides and their respective motivations.

"While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II’s ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.

“At the same meeting, certain suggestions were made for a canonical solution to the position of the Society of St. Pius X, with a view to achieving the desired reconciliation”.
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2011/09/communique-concerning-society-of-st.html

Even moreso, as he delivered an official response in January 2012, which was considered “insufficient”:
“In compliance with the decision of Pope Benedict XVI,” the communique said, Bishop Fellay was given a letter signed by Cardinal Levada explaining that “the position he had expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the fracture between the Holy See and the society.”

"…the Vatican said it wanted to “avoid an ecclesial rupture with painful and incalculable consequences,” so Bishop Fellay and leaders of the society were asked to further clarify their response to a “doctrinal preamble”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201073.htm

They were given a month to consider and their reply in April was seen as “a step forward” by the Vatican:

In June he “said talks with the Vatican demonstrate that “Rome no longer makes total acceptance” of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council a condition for his group’s full reconciliation with the church.”

"Speaking to members of the SSPX who are wary of reconciliation, Bishop Fellay said “one of the great dangers is to end up inventing an idea of the church that appears ideal, but is in fact not found in the real history of the church.”

“Some claim that in order to work ‘safely’ in the church, she must first be cleansed of all error. This is what they say when they declare that Rome must convert before any agreement, or that its errors must first be suppressed so that we can work,” he said.

But the reality of the church’s history shows that “often, and almost always, we see that there are widespread errors” and that God calls holy men and women to work within the church to correct the errors, Bishop Fellay said.

**“We are being asked to come and work just as all the reforming saints of all times did,” he said.

Seems he’s changed his mind somewhat
**

 

[Faithdancer]

Dee (et.al.) I just read what might be construed as a pointed attack on Bishop Fellay, delivered Nov. 18th by a priest of SSPX- it can be accessed here: gloria.tv/?media=361884

I wonder if this is an indication of what Bishop Fellay is getting hit with from within his own society, publicly and privately. Together with the apparent contradictions we have been noting, it causes me to wonder even more if he is attempting a strategy of appeasing the hardliners within while simultaneously continuing dialogue with Rome, sotto voce. I’m just conjecturing, of course, and will advance no opinion one way or another on what should or could happen vis-a-vis SSPX “reconciliation.”

 

[Faithdancer]

They should start Kaepernick but they wont because the coach has some sort of strange fascination with Smith. Though I guess kap got some first team reps.
49rs should start kap, Jets should start Tebow and Bears should start… getting ready for next year.

Well, Smith has given a lot to the team, suffered through some bad coaching and so forth. I think he deserves to be the starter, but keep grooming Kaepernick and give him playing time whenever possible, as well as sub him in promptly if Smith blows up.

Unless I’m mistaken Smith will be a free agent after this season?

 

[Faithdancer]

You don’t know French Catholics. Correction: you don’t know the French!

Ah, la gloire de l’Empire! Marengo, Jena, Austerlitz, Borodino…(I can’t remember what happened after that!)
I am now humming the Marseillaise…

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Ah, la gloire de l’Empire! Marengo, Jena, Austerlitz, Borodino…(I can’t remember what happened after that!)

A lot of snow and far fewer French.

Sic transit…

 

[Faithdancer]

A lot of snow and far fewer French.

Sic transit…

gloria mundi!
I’m your Huckleberry.

 

[CesarAugustus]

The Church takes two separate stands. One is against legalizing abortion. The other is against criminalizing it in such a way that it fails to examine the subjective condition of the person involved. A doctor who performs an abortion is in a very different place than a woman who procures an abortion under stress. Because of these kinds of differences and others that are more remarkable, the Church is very careful to prescribe criminalization. She does not oppose penalties that are proportionate. This is the part that the bishop failed to mention or was lost in the interview. I do think that this would have helped people to understand a little better.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Good news!

Mons. Salazar said some clarifications regarding the interview:

(In Spanish):

facebook.com/notes/monse%C3%B1or-rub%C3%A9n-salazar-g%C3%B3mez-mensajero-de-paz-y-de-justicia/cardenal-precisa-puntos-sobre-el-aborto-la-vida-humana-y-la-eutanasia/417050348363303

Translation:

1. Abortion is an abominable crime (cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 51), therefore, its decriminalization is not acceptable in any case, it is not possible to consider or declare a right. Again as I have done on other occasions, I clearly express my rejection of the Constitutional Court ruling that decriminalized abortion in some cases.

1. The human embryo has its own life from the moment of conception and is a totally different from the women, thus “must be respected -as a person- from the first moment of his existence” (John Paul II, Instruction on gift of life I, 1) and treated with all due respect throughout the process of development.

1. In no time, or for any reason humans can have your life or the lives of others, hence suicide, called “assisted suicide” and euthanasia are morally unacceptable (cf. Encyclical Evangelium vitae 66) . I affirm my rejection of any state law that seeks to legalize these practices.

Blessings!

 

[Dee_S]

… it causes me to wonder even more if he is attempting a strategy of appeasing the hardliners within while simultaneously continuing dialogue with Rome, sotto voce. I’m just conjecturing, of course, and will advance no opinion one way or another on what should or could happen vis-a-vis SSPX “reconciliation.”

I also wondered, until I read the entire sermon “Where do we stand in Rome”, that I was talking about in my last post, which he gave on November 1 in Econe.
sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/bishop_fellay_econe_sermon_11-9-2012.htm
Take a look at these extracts from his sermon…
“I made so bold as to bypass the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and to write directly to the Pope…”

“But in the text that was presented to me in June, everything that I had removed because it could not be accepted had been put back.”

CNS News June 13
“Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, met for more than two hours with officials of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”

“In April, Bishop Fellay submitted to the Vatican his second official response to a “doctrinal preamble”…”

"The cardinals and the pope had studied Bishop Fellay’s first response, which was submitted in January, and later issued a statement saying his position "is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the fracture between the Holy See and the society."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202485.htm (june13)
“During the meeting, Bishop Fellay was given the Holy See’s evaluation – including the opinion of Pope Benedict XVI – of the society’s April response to a “doctrinal preamble” that the bishop would need to sign in order to reconcile the society with the rest of the church, the Vatican said in a written statement released June 14.”

“Father Lombardi said the Vatican is showing its willingness and availability to reach an agreement, but that now it is up to Bishop Fellay to respond to the Vatican’s position.”

“The Vatican spokesman said the society would be holding its general chapter in July, which would be “an occasion for reflection and exchange” of ideas concerning its next step.”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202500.htm (june14 update)

Bishop Fellay continues…"When this document was delivered to me, I said: “No, I am not signing this; the Society is not going to sign.” I wrote to the Pope: “We cannot sign that,” explaining: “Until now—since we are not in agreement about the Council and since you wish, it seems, to recognize us—I had thought that you were ready to set aside the Council…perhaps you think it is more important to recognize us as Catholics than to insist on the Council. But now with the text that you are delivering to us, I think that I was mistaken. Tell us, then, really what you want. For among us these questions sow confusion.”

This is hard to believe

He goes on to say…“The Pope replied to me in a letter dated June 30 in which he sets three conditions:”

These we discussed in earlier posts because they appeared in his sermon on November 11 at St Nicholas du Chardonnet.

“I had sent to Rome the documents of the General Chapter, our final Declaration which is clear, and our conditions for eventually, when the time comes, reaching an agreement about a possible canonical recognition. These are conditions without which it is impossible [for the Society] to live; that would quite simply be self-destruction. For to accept everything that is being done today in the Church is to destroy ourselves.”

CNS July 19
“The statement from the society’s general chapter meeting, which ended July 14, was posted in French, Italian, English, German and Spanish on the society’s website July 19.”

"The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication" of the society as its “dialogue with the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ continues,” he said… U.S. Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, is handling the discussions with the SSPX under the guidance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203027.htm

 

[Dee_S]

continued…

“The Pope replied to me in a letter dated June 30 in which he sets three conditions:”
These we discussed in earlier posts because they appeared in his sermon on November 11 at St Nicholas du Chardonnet.

“I had sent to Rome the documents of the General Chapter, our final Declaration which is clear, and our conditions for eventually, when the time comes, reaching an agreement about a possible canonical recognition. These are conditions without which it is impossible [for the Society] to live; that would quite simply be self-destruction. For to accept everything that is being done today in the Church is to destroy ourselves.”
CNS july 19
“The statement from the society’s general chapter meeting, which ended July 14, was posted in French, Italian, English, German and Spanish on the society’s website July 19.”

"The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication" of the society as its “dialogue with the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ continues,” he said… U.S. Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, is handling the discussions with the SSPX under the guidance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203027.htm

This is :hypno:
“The proposed reconciliation, in fact, amounts to to reconciling us with Vatican II … And Rome says: “We have not yet received your official response.” But three times I replied that we could not, that we were not going down that path.”

very odd -considering this Declaration of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on Monday, October 29, 2012
.
"The Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ takes this occasion to announce that, in its most recent official communication (6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has indicated that additional time for reflection and study is needed on their part as they prepare their response to the Holy See’s latest initiatives."

"At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents .
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/declaration-of-pontifical-commission_29.html

This is confusing
“Not long ago, we had a position statement from the President of Ecclesia Dei, who is at the same time the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asserting that the discussions with the Society were over.(Cardinal Mueller)
And last Saturday, a new declaration from the Ecclesia Dei says: “No, we must allow them some time; it is understandable that after thirty years of debate they should need a certain amount of time; we do see that they have an ardent desire to be reconciled.” I have the impression that they have it more than we do. And we wonder: what is happening?”

And his final conclusion

“In all these discussions, I have arrived at the conclusion—and I think that this explains what is happening now—that the pope really, very seriously would like to recognize the Society. However the conditions that he sets are impossible for us. **The conditions that are found in his letter are for us quite simply impossible.”
**
“Now, to speak about the future, what we will try to do with the Roman authorities is to tell them that it does no good to pretend, for the sake of the faith, that the Church cannot be mistaken…It is necessary to stop saying: the Church can do nothing bad, therefore the new Mass is good. It is necessary to stop saying: the Church cannot err, and therefore there is no error in the Council… Now this is truly the impression that one has with regard to what Rome is trying to impose on us today. And here we reply: we cannot. That is all.
And therefore we continue, come what may!”

 

[Faithdancer]

But it is still unknown- how much of what Bishop Fellay says this month non-negotiable, and how much of it is politics? It reminds me of how congressmen and senators swear eternal opposition to a piece of legislation one day, and then accommodations are made and the bill is passed into law the next. I certainly don’t think that there is a lack of political maneuvering on the higher ecclesiastical levels. Nor, if there is politicking, is it necessarily a bad thing, because that’s how deals get done. It is certainly how many of our Popes have been selected throughout our long and colorful history of papal elections. Such processes do not have to be transparent and open to public scrutiny.

 

[Boulder257]

But it is still unknown- how much of what Bishop Fellay says this month non-negotiable, and how much of it is politics? It reminds me of how congressmen and senators swear eternal opposition to a piece of legislation one day, and then accommodations are made and the bill is passed into law the next. I certainly don’t think that there is a lack of political maneuvering on the higher ecclesiastical levels. Nor, if there is politicking, is it necessarily a bad thing, because that’s how deals get done. It is certainly how many of our Popes have been selected throughout our long and colorful history of papal elections. Such processes do not have to be transparent and open to public scrutiny.

Very true. Although, it doesn’t appear as though the Vatican is playing both sides, or that the Vatican is making very much public. I really only see this behavior coming from one side of the table.

I think we must be careful…or should I say that those trying to “negotiate” with the Church should be extremely careful. This is not a political debate. This is not even really a negotiation. This is the Church trying to keep the door open as long as she can so that everyone has a chance to come inside. I hope they take the chance before it is too late. I would certainly not want to be on the other side of the door after she has been so patient.

 

[Faithdancer]

Very true. Although, it doesn’t appear as though the Vatican is playing both sides, or that the Vatican is making very much public. I really only see this behavior coming from one side of the table.

I think we must be careful…or should I say that those trying to “negotiate” with the Church should be extremely careful. This is not a political debate. This is not even really a negotiation. This is the Church trying to keep the door open as long as she can so that everyone has a chance to come inside. I hope they take the chance before it is too late. I would certainly not want to be on the other side of the door after she has been so patient.

I agree, the Vatican has been very patient. And I think that if there is a “political” strategy involved, it is mostly concerned with holding the SSPX together. I do think that we can describe the overall process as in part negotiatory, however- the term does not necessarily imply an equality of power or of right between the parties in negotiation. For example, terms of surrender may be negotiable or non-negotiable, and the overall process of surrender may be conditional or unconditional.

 

[JReducation]

Dee (et.al.) I just read what might be construed as a pointed attack on Bishop Fellay, delivered Nov. 18th by a priest of SSPX- it can be accessed here: gloria.tv/?media=361884

I’m always a little sad when Catholics read something like this and do not stop to comment on it. It’s almost as if one side believes that it’s not important and the other side accepts it at face value. Both positions are wrong.

As in all things in life, there are positives and negatives in this statement. There are facts and there are assumptions being presented as facts. I’ll attempt to give a very BRIEF analysis of what is a very long statement.

either the Society does a u-turn and continues the principles and the fight/] of Archbishop Lefebvre and previous great saint popes.

The great reformers in Catholic history were not fighters. They responded, not reacted. Their response targeted very specific problems, but they never ended in a stand-off with the pope.

our holy founder.

It is very inappropriate to label a bishop who died excommunicated as “holy”. We don’t know the state of his soul. We can only commend it to the mercy of God. If we follow the language of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, they always refer to him by his name. It may seem like a small detail, but it has significance, because it sends a clear message that the individual doing the speaking believes he has the right to declare holy those about whom the Magisterium remains silent. It begs the question, “Who’s in charge?”

So pray for this, pray for all the priests, all the priests, pray for the Pope to consecrate Russia. That really is the solution. But if the Pope ignores Our Lady what can do but pray for him?

Fatima is not a dogma. It has never been declared a dogma. Bl. John Paul did the consecration as he believed it should be done. The Blessed Mother does not trump Peter. In the early Church, she was his most faithful subordinate, not his supervisor. Mary is being put in the wrong place in relation to Peter and the miracle of Fatima is being elevated to a dogmatic command, which it is not.

So, we can compare this to our dear Archbishop Lefebvre who when he saw during the Vatican Council the highjacking of the Holy Catholic Church by the enemies of Jesus Christ witnessed before his eyes he saw their expressions, he saw their whispering, he saw the laughter of the liberal bishops when Cardinal Ottaviani was trying, he went over his time, they turned off the speaker and he was in tears, begging the council fathers “Don’t go this direction; it will be the destruction of the faith.” And Archbishop Lefebvre saw these rats, these hyenas, just wreak havoc in the Church. But how did they do it?

The Archbishop’s signature appears on every document approved by the Council Fathers. Either this story is hagiography or the Archbishop was a great actor.

Archbishop Lefebvre made this very simple distinction which is not being heard anymore from the top of our dear Society. And what is that distinction? That Rome, now, is modernist. Rome now is the Conciliar church. It is a new religion which we refuse to follow because we want to remain Catholic. So the modernist Rome, the Conciliar church, must be distinguished from the Eternal Rome, the Catholic Church of all time.

He just called the pope a heretic, but asks Catholics to accept his authority on this. From where or whom does he receive such authority? Archbishop Lefebvre did not have such authority. Only a council of bishops has this kind of authority. That’s been part of tradition for centuries.

We cannot desire a peace treaty with the enemies of Jesus Christ. They are destroying the Faith and taking millions of souls to hell at the hands of bishops and priests, and with great, great sadness by the Pope himself. The Holy Father should hold high the light of the Catholic Faith but what did he do in Assisi just a year ago? You know what he did. Before the whole world, invited an atheist, with all these Buddhists, Muslims, Anglicans, you name it, they were all there. Voodooists. Satanists. An atheist who publicly said “I want to thank Pope Benedict XVI for inviting me to Assisi to represent the non-believers.”

He’s trying to be PC. He refers to the sadness of the Holy Father and then slams him. He passes judgment on everyone else as being the enemy of Christ. Again, on what authority? Even the pope does not make such statements without careful thought. All priests, traditional and mainstream must be consistent in their respect for the Holy Father.

How could the Pope if he had the Catholic Faith and knows the First Commandment, you boys serving Mass, you little boys and kids out there, what’s the First Commandment, you know—There’s only One God and no false gods before Me. And when we see the Pope himself and with his fellow cardinals and bishops, everyone being silent and trampling on Almighty God, the First Commandment, the whole Catholic world should react against this,

Again, the pope is a heretic. No priest has the authority or right to make such a public statement. There are systems for this, if you truly believe this.

 

[JReducation]

especially the Society of Saint Pius X! And even there we had a weak resistance which tells you something is seriously wrong from the top. I smell Freemasonry. God knows.

Bringing in conspiracies.

And they obeyed and by the obedience they destroyed many souls and many Catholics lose their faith by false obedience. How many nuns, how many priests, because they were obedient lost their faith, changed their habits, threw out their rosaries and crucifixes, and joined with the world?

The first part of this statement is a false assumption. No one loses his soul who follows authority in good faith, even when authority is wrong. God judges based on three points: moral gravity, full knowledge and full consent. The person who lacks full knowledge is not subjectively culpable of sin.

The second part has some validity. There were radical changes in religious life that were detrimental, because the respective communities did not go back to their roots as they were told to do. They created a future in a bubble, rather than a future grounded in their past.

“No authority , not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.”

This is true. No authority can command sin. He has to prove that the Magisterium has commanded objective sin.

The Society of Saint Pius X is the last bastion of the Faith. It’s the last framework standing up.

This is arrogant to the extreme. He just threw every other religious order, society of apostolic life, lay Catholic movement and individuals such as Mother Teresa under the bus. No one is Catholic except the Society.

Well it’s very clear the Archbishop told Cardinal Ratzinger who was this Pope now, he told him in very clear words. He didn’t try to use confusing language to make Rome smile and think we think like them. It’s not true. He was very clear. Here’s what he told the cardinal: “You are working to de-Christianize society. You are working to uncrown Christ the King, the human person in the Church. And we, the Society of Saint Pius X and traditional Catholics throughout the world we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together. Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends, Rome is in apostasy. I am not speaking empty words; that is the truth.”

He’s elevating a comment by the Archbishop to the level of a dogmatic decree. Bishops don’t have that kind of authority. They can certainly have an opinion.

And the proof of Rome’s loss of the Faith, he almost hit it every week, this Pope has visited a mosque, in 2006 faced Mecca, did not make the sign of the cross, he took his shoes off and faced Mecca, praying with those Muslims. A horrible scandal, going into a mosque, to synagogues, praying with the Jews, who refuse Jesus Christ. The Jews reject Jesus Christ. And we cannot pray with the Jews; we must pray for the Jews to convert to Jesus Christ. This Pope, all his efforts towards ecumenism, Assisi III of course, which was a disaster, worse than Assisi I and Assisi II because he appears as the “conservative Pope” and deceiving many. And many think because he released the Tridentine Mass that’s he’s a conservative and he’s making gestures towards tradition. It’s not true. It’s very subtle, very sneaky.

One step shy of calling Pope Benedict the Anti-Christ. Not to mention that the pope can enter any place of worship he so chooses, because these laws do not apply to popes. He is apply laws to pope that he has not right to apply. Will the real pope please stand up.

they have tore off from Catholic countries, from Columbia, Spain, Ireland, Philippines in ’92, Italy in 1984, tore off, ripped out Jesus Christ from the constitutions. And this promoted by the Vatican itself.

WHOAH! Anti-clericalism is the norm of the day in these countries. It has nothing to do with Rome. Rome has no authority over them.

He makes many assumptions and proves none. Whether this kind of person is to the left or the right, such dissent is dangerous to the extreme, because it sets the speaker up as some kind of authority over those who are legitimate authorities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

This priest isn’t exactly the poster boy for reconciliation, is he?

One thing I know, I wouldn’t want to be Bishop Fellay right now. He must be popping Tylenol like candy!

 

[JReducation]

This priest isn’t exactly the poster boy for reconciliation, is he?

One thing I know, I wouldn’t want to be Bishop Fellay right now. He must be popping Tylenol like candy!

Unfortunately, he’s a hairline short of excommunicating himself. He has inferred that the pope is a heretic, a public sinner, a sneak, not trustworthy, has lost his faith and that he’s a Modernist. One’s one hairline short of saying that the Chair of Peter is empty. That would effectively excommunicate him. Even Bishop Fellay cannot reinstate him then. Only the pope can lift that excommunication.

In my relationship with traditionalists, I have always discouraged them from throwing out anathemas all over the place, either de facto or implied. You can throw out the wrong anathema and find yourself outside of the physical Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

This priest isn’t exactly the poster boy for reconciliation, is he?

One thing I know, I wouldn’t want to be Bishop Fellay right now. He must be popping Tylenol like candy!

In reply to Br JR, I deliberately chose not to comment on Fr Hewko as I am not sure if discussing anything on a link of his, given the type of organization he belongs to, would contravene CAF policy. I would not like to be suspended or banned.

Taking a look at the ‘Resistance’ website (save our sspx) I see that Fr Hewko makes it to their ‘Honor Roll’:
"The Honor Roll of Brave and Courageous SSPX Priests, Bishops and Collaborators who fight for the Traditional Catholic Faith , like St Paul, Stand firm in their faith and correct their Brethren against the heresies."

I have browsed this site previously and don’t like what I see there at all. I’m not sure that they should be given the publicity they obviously crave They are wildly rude about the Pope, the Vatican & the SSPX.

It must be disturbing for the faithful attending the SSPX chapels to be appealed to and have to bear the insult & innuendo of not being faithful to *their *rebel cause because Bishop Fellay is attempting a reconciliation with Rome.

Knowing what I do about the SSPX and these priests that have been expelled they are hardly a recommendation for any Catholic with common sense or decency, as this quote from an article (about Fr Rostand support of a sermon of Bishop Fellay’s in Australia) on their website proves: (now Mr Casey, please don’t shoot the messenger:blush

"The Catholic Church does not belong to Bp. Fellay, to Rostand, to Cardinal Dolan, or even to Ratzinger… We must accept all the perversions, scandals, heresies sicknesses coming from this polluted Rome because, he (bishop fellay)says, just as Our Blessed Mother “accepted " the body of Her Beloved Son off the Cross, we must “accept” this beaten, bloodied, bruised, scandalized, heretical “body”. You see, according to Fellay’s twisted religion… This is why Rostand and Fellay think they can expel and or silence Bishop Williamson, Father Pfeiffer, Father Chazal, Father Hewko, Father Meramo,Fathers Abrahamovitz, Dom Notilglia Beauvais, Cardozo, Damien Fox, Girourd, Garbriel Grosso, Michael Koller, Steven Reuters, Soliman, Juan Turco, the Capuchins, Bp Tissiier, Bp DeGalaretta --they can all be expelled or silenced because they do not go along with fellay and Rostand’s new religion-.”

AS to Bishop Fellay being stressed about them…No, I’m sure not at all. They have so marginalized themselves that only a radical traditionalist would even contemplate following them.

 

[Dee_S]

Fr Hewko’s Open Letter to Bishop Fellay - is advertised on that site with a link to the website of the (in)famous “Vienna Five”, claiming that he did not revolt against authority when he took this action. Then a short explanation of this open letter, of which this is an extract:

“What father hewko explains to bishop Fellay is that he(Fr. Hewko , his colleagues and parishioners) must remain thoroughly CATHOLIC. That he must save his soul! That he must stay the course set by Archbishop Lefebvre, set by cardinal ottaviani, set by St Pius X, set by Saint Pius V, Set by St John Chrysostum, set by Our Lord Jesus Christ! Father explains to Bishop Fellay that it is mortally sinful to follow fellay into this heretical Rome. Mortally sinful. Death to the soul is the consequence of following Bp fellay and Co. and their program into Rome. Death.Fathe rwas ordained to bring life to the souls. Life or Death.”

Really wacky stuff. My heart goes out to the faithful, but I think they are way too sensible to leave where they are safe to wander off with what is a rebellious little pocket of resistance to authority in any size shape or form & as Br JR points out, put themselves in danger of excommunication by that rejection.