It is currently Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:51 pm




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

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Well that's the most mature and considered text I've seen from any official SSPX source for some time.

It's a pity Fr. Wegner does not seem to be aware of all of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, as Tissier is.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 18, 2012 10:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:57 pm
Posts: 8
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Had to post this here, from the REmnant's interview with Fr. Rostand:

The reason why the Pope wants to resolve this situation is difficult to know. On the one hand, there seems to be a desire on his part to avoid a so-called “schism.” On the other hand, he is aware of the dramatic situation of the Church, which readers of your newspaper know all to well: open heresies professed by churchmen, sometimes touching the divinity of our Lord Himself, not to mention open rebellion, loss of faith, and disciplinary problems, whether in Austria, America, or Ireland… The Holy Father, I think, sees that the SSPX could be of some assistance in helping fight these real and all-too-prevalent problems.

I can't believe he's actually presenting to the lay faithful of the SSPX that the problem isn't Ben XVI heresies at all, that in fact the heresies (perpetrated by Ben XVI) are the fault of other people in the Church and that Ben XVI is concerned about these heresies, and that's why he wants the SSPX in the Church now.... as if though, less than two weeks ago Ratzinger didn't say the "theological reassessment" of the Church's position re: the Jews wasn't legitimate and a great thing!!!! Seriously fed up with the SSPX....


Sat May 19, 2012 2:38 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
trent13 wrote:
Seriously fed up with the SSPX....

Not everyone in the SSPX believes or acts as Fellay does. I am very fed up with him. The SSPX, not so much...

God DOES separate the wheat from the chaff, you know.

Most of the time this winnowing is pretty painful for someone.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat May 19, 2012 8:17 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Ken Gordon wrote:
trent13 wrote:
Seriously fed up with the SSPX....

Not everyone in the SSPX believes or acts as Fellay does. I am very fed up with him. The SSPX, not so much...

God DOES separate the wheat from the chaff, you know.

Most of the time this winnowing is pretty painful for someone.

Yes, it seems the real problem is Bp. Fellay is deviating from the main principles that guided the SSPX for decades now.


Sat May 19, 2012 11:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
Well that's the most mature and considered text I've seen from any official SSPX source for some time.

It's a pity Fr. Wegner does not seem to be aware of all of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, as Tissier is.


Quote:
FACT: On Sunday, 13 May, Fr. Wegner, district superior for Canada, gave a sermon at the Church of the Transfiguration in Toronto, where he stated, inter alia, Bishop Fellay has done as much as or more for the S.S.P.X than Archbishop Lefebvre, and that in relation to S.S.P.X-Rome relations “Rome was gracious enough to overlook one of our Bishops being a Holocaust denier" (if any disputes that this is a fact, contact me via email at NWansbutterEsq@gmail.com and I will provide an .wav of the sermon).


Sun May 20, 2012 12:46 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Robert Bastaja wrote:
Quote:
FACT: On Sunday, 13 May, Fr. Wegner, district superior for Canada, gave a sermon at the Church of the Transfiguration in Toronto, where he stated, inter alia, Bishop Fellay has done as much as or more for the S.S.P.X than Archbishop Lefebvre, ... (if any disputes that this is a fact, contact me via email at NWansbutterEsq@gmail.com and I will provide an .wav of the sermon).


Thanks Robert,

If I recall the text of the sermon he refers to, Fr. Wegner didn't say that at all. I could have the wrong sermon, but if I'm right he said something like the Vatican has conceded more to the SSPX in the last few years than it did when it made its offer in 1988 (which is obviously an accurate observation). The point wasn't that Bishop Fellay had done more, and especially not more for the SSPX, than the Archbishop. The point, it seemed obvious to me, was in defence of Bishop Fellay feeling that he is faced with a new situation, one not really that similar to that faced by the Archbishop. That can be disputed, but we should in all justice try and make sure we understand what is being argued by the other side.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun May 20, 2012 8:23 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
And now we find out that Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer has been giving sermons denouncing the deal.

http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics ... x-and-rome

And now also here: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Fr%20JP%20May%2027%20Rome%20SSPX%20Davao.mp3

I'll say it: The deal is dead.

What will happen next is anybody's guess, but the deal can't proceed.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 30, 2012 1:44 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
And now we find out that Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer has been giving sermons denouncing the deal.

http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics ... x-and-rome

I'll say it: The deal is dead.

What will happen next is anybody's guess, but the deal can't proceed.


I listened to it. Is this type of sermon widespread?


Wed May 30, 2012 2:58 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
I doubt it, Robert, but it doesn't really matter. In the circumstances, it's the final nail, I think.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed May 30, 2012 3:46 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
I doubt it, Robert, but it doesn't really matter. In the circumstances, it's the final nail, I think.


I hope you are right. I'm downloading the mp3 now, my computer says it will take about 4 hours (if I don't lose the connection).

When the delay was initially announced (i.e., that Benedict would not consider the documents until after the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul) I was thinking that they would think July 9th would be the ideal date to announce an agreement. After all, what could be a better way to announce a union of the SSPX with Conciliar Rome than to pervert Saint Thomas More's defense of the papacy?


Wed May 30, 2012 11:55 am
Profile

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

I have only heard rumours of SSPX priests such as Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer. I have not had much opportunity to be around many SSPX priests, but the few I have heard preach have never sounded as this man.

In the past few weeks, we've heard ordinary sermons with a few announcements telling the faithful that all is well. Frankly, Americans have become weak willed--even many American traditional Catholics.

Fr. Pfeiffer himself fears that few priests will stand firm when the trial actually comes. I'm not as confident as some others.


Wed May 30, 2012 6:01 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Who is Fr. Pfieffer? I am listening to his April 29 sermon: all I can say is "Wow!".

Where does he serve?

I wonder if he is related to that Mr. John Pfeiffer I mentioned here in another thread...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed May 30, 2012 6:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
And now we find out that Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer has been giving sermons denouncing the deal.

http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics ... x-and-rome

And now also here: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Fr%20JP%20May%2027%20Rome%20SSPX%20Davao.mp3

I'll say it: The deal is dead.

What will happen next is anybody's guess, but the deal can't proceed.


John, you maybe right but my guess is that Ratzinger, being the spider that he is, won't let this grand opportunity pass him by. I also think that Bishop Fellay and the other "higher ups" are so smitten by the N.O. that they too won't let this chance pass them by. What a tragedy! There is a reason for all of this and I believe that if a deal does go through, God will see to it that good will come out of it.


Wed May 30, 2012 8:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:38 pm
Posts: 30
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Wow!!! This SSPX Priest has taken the gloves off and is firing with both barrels!!!!


Wed May 30, 2012 9:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Thomas wrote:
Wow!!! This SSPX Priest has taken the gloves off and is firing with both barrels!!!!


And I hope that someone from the parish where this sermon was given lets us (and the rest of the world) know if Father returns. He sounded as if he really did not know if the SSPX would allow him to continue in the SSPX.


Wed May 30, 2012 10:45 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Yes, he has certainly crossed the Rubicon. No turning back now. It's him or the deal.

What has become clear in the last few weeks is that when the priests told us that they didn't know what was going on, they were being perfectly frank. Now, we know how we felt about that - it caused unease at best. Imagine how they felt, when they received the assurance from Albano that there would be no deal without doctrinal agreement? That meant, as de Galarreta has made clear, no deal with Modernists, only Catholics.

The priests are feeling betrayed, and that's what Fr. Pfeiffer is giving voice to. Evidently he doesn't care whether he is expelled, because if they're going to abandon Tradition he wouldn't stay anyway.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 31, 2012 12:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
The priests are feeling betrayed, and that's what Fr. Pfeiffer is giving voice to. Evidently he doesn't care whether he is expelled, because if they're going to abandon Tradition he wouldn't stay anyway.

From what I read this morning, he is far from alone amongst his fellow priests...and the laity is right there with them too. Boy! This does NOT look particularly good!

I am going to contact my friend Mr. John Pfeiffer to see if he 1) is related to this Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, and 2) if he knows anything we don't...yet.

I am also going to contact our friend in Korea again to see what is going on over there.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Thu May 31, 2012 12:24 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:54 pm
Posts: 29
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
The unusual name Pfeiffer had stuck in my mind.

In fact, is was that of Fr John Timothy Pfeiffer (who, I now gather, is the brother of Fr Joseph Pfeiffer). I had remembered it in connection with a review of his that appeared in the issue of The Angelus for January 2003. The review was of The Litugical Movement by Fr Didier Bonnaterre – a valuable account of how the eponymous movement, that owed so much to Dom Guéranger, had descended by stages into promoting the antithesis of his intentions, and (as at least some of us hold) corrupting the Sacraments.

In the closing lines of the review, Fr Pfeiffer wrote:

Quote:
If we recall the good beginning of the Liturgical Movement and follow it through to its corrupt ending, we can see how the praxis strategy [i.e., the strategy of natural action-Ed.] of the Marxist system was perfectly implemented by a modernist clique. Where the doctrinal angle was locked to the ecumentists by vigilant popes, entry was gained by simply practicing a new way, by making new contacts, and gradually disseminating through these contacts new ideas and habits. Once the environment was prepared, the revolution could be pulled off because sympathies were already predisposed. This is the conversion by action rather than by doctrinal principle so vaunted by Marxist revolutionaries.

... the praxis strategy of creating compliance by the daily ‘rubbing of shoulders’ with a different set of ideas in action must be combated by a profound spirit of piety and reverence for the Church and her true spirit and practice. A revolutionary and false praxis can only be uprooted by a truly supernatural life and action.

[Ref: - http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2177 Emphasis added.]

It seems that in his sermon of 27th May 2012 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIVlQQTk8tE], Fr Joseph Pfeiffer, was describing (without naming) this same technique as having been used to neuter the likes of the Society of Saint Peter, and, more recently, to seduce the current leadership of the SSPX, with the prospect of it being applied later to the SSPX as a whole. Evidently, it is that prospect which has occasioned Fr Pfeiffer’s vehement warning.


Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Today, Trinity Sunday, I found copies of a letter from Fr. Michael Simoulin at the St. Joseph Chapel (Greenwood, Indiana) in the location Father places SSPX notices, letters, mailings, etc.

I do not know who this priest is or when it was originally written, but it is apparently reflects the point of view of the priest that comes to our chapel. I do not find comfort in this letter and it indicates to me that the agreement will happen and the SSPX will soon be on the very same level as the FSSP, ICK, and any other Conciliar “traditional” group. All italics are from the original.

I haven’t seen this text posted. If it has been, I apologize for the duplicate post.

Quote:
I do not know what the situation will be at the time of the publication of this bulletin, but I think that it is useful to reflect together on the current events. I do not speak about this “republican” masquerade we are living through [the elections in France], but our relations with Rome.

Recently, somebody sent me a text with this question: “When will we return to the fundamentals of our Society? When will we have the humility to respect the heritage of its founder?

I believe that I know a little our Society – of which I have been member for 35 years – and thus to have the right to remind all that our “fundamentals” are engraved in golden letters in our statutes: “the goal of the Society is the priesthood and all that refers to it and only what relates to it, i.e., such as Our Lord Jesus-Christ wanted it when He said: Do this in memory of Me.” Such is the heritage of our founder, such are our “fundamentals”; we do not have any others, and we do not want to have others. The Society is not an army raised up against Rome, but an army formed for the Church.

Then, allusion is made to Mgr. Lefebvre’s refusal to follow the path towards an agreement in 1988. And the Archbishop is quoted: “With the protocol of May 5th we would have died soon. We would not have lasted a year…” All this, of course, intended to warn us and to invite us to refuse any Roman offer, something that we should do “under pain of death.”.

Yet another echo reaches me: “in Rome serious things are happening, very serious… but I cannot tell you more!” Not that this is of much help for me!

Then, let us be reasonable. To do so, it will be good to remember a little the events of 1988. After having signed the draft of an agreement on May 5th (which was not yet an agreement, but was nonetheless, a very imperfect and even dangerous text, and which did not let Mgr. Lefebvre sleep in peace), on the morning of May 6th the Archbishop wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, not to retract his signature (“Yesterday, with a real satisfaction, I put my signature to the protocol prepared on the previous days. But you noted yourself a deep disappointment at the reading of the letter that you gave me with the answer of the Holy Father about the episcopal consecration”), but to urgently require that this consecration could take place on June 30th, in order to be certain of having a bishop to continue his work. This letter of May 6th is entirely and exclusively concerned with this one point: “If the answer were to be negative, I would find myself obliged, in conscience, to proceed to the consecration, based on the approval given by the Holy See in the protocol for fhe consecration of a bishop member of the Society.” Thus, the reason for stopping the process was neither a doctrinal question nor the statute offered to the Society, but the date of the consecration of the bishop that had been granted. And it should be noted that the rupture of the relations was decided then, not by Mgr. Lefebvre, but by Cardinal Ratzinger, who refused this episcopal consecration for June 30th.

If, indeed, Mgr. Lefebvre had accepted that the protocol of May 5th were not to have been followed by this episcopal consecration, then, yes, “with the protocol of May 5th we would have died soon. Se would not have lasted a year…”, because without a bishop, we would have been delivered to the good (or bad) pleasure of Rome and the bishops.

After our Jubilee [pilgrimage] of the year 2000, Rome took the initiative of new relations. Today, the same cardinal become Pope has told us that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated (July 7th, 2007): “It is thus allowed to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass according to the standard edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated”); he rehabilitated our four bishops (January 21st, 2009); he accepted that we hold doctrinal discussions during two years…all things that Mgr. Lefebvre did not require in 1988. It is not exaggerated to say that Bishop Fellay obtained more than what Mgr. Lefebvre required, without however having the same prestige or moral authority. Then, must we be even more demanding than Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay?

Whatever the state of Rome is, whatever still remains worrisome in Rome, simple good sense and honesty should lead us to consider the current situation with different eyes that in 1988! To take up the formula of one of our bishops, we should not fall into “eighty-eightism”! (1) We are no longer in 1975 with Paul VI nor in 1988 with John Paul II, but in 2012 with Benedict XVI. You can tell me as much as you want that the state of the Church is still very alarming, that our Pope has a sometimes strange theology, etc… we have said it enough, it seems to me, but you cannot tell me that the state of things is the same as in 1988 or even worse. To do so would be contrary to reality and to the truth, and can only be the effect of a more or less secret refusal of any reconciliation with Rome, perhaps even a lack of faith in the holiness of the Church, composed of poor sinners but always governed by her head, Jesus-Christ, and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The SSPX is not the Church and it can “respect the heritage of its founder” only by preserving his spirit, his love for the Church and his desire to serve her as a loving son, in fidelity to the founding blessings.

I do not know if all realize the weight of this decision, which belongs only to Bishop Fellay, a decision that was entrusted to him again last October by our Superiors meeting in Albano, a decision considered together with his assistants: What does the Church expect from the Society in 2012? How must the Society answer to the “needs” of the Church today?

This requires a highly supernatural virtue of prudence, to a degree that none of us has the grace to reach, because it does not pertain either to our abilities or to our responsibility. Only Bishop Fellay and his assistants have, by definition, the totality of the information required to judge rightly about the current situation. The question that each one must rather ask himself refers to our benevolence towards authority and, especially, to our trust in that authority. For twelve years Bishop Fellay has been arguing with Rome, with ups and downs, to finally arrive at the results quoted above, and even to an amazing result that perhaps nobody has even noticed: these doctrinal discussions, which did not make nay noise in the market place, have enabled us to say to Rome what we think… to the point of making the discussions end abruptly!

And yet, what hasn’t been said about the silence of the superiors around these discussions and about the documents exchanged these last months, and about their great discretion out of respect for Rome and the Holy Father? It has all been interpreted as a form of dissimulation, and even the beginning of a compromise. How can anyone doubt the uprightness of our superiors in such a gratuitous and arbitrary way?

No one knows yet the conclusion that Benedict XVI will want to give to these twelve years of slow work, or searching for a better understanding, and to the prayers and rosaries accumulated. The time is now for prayer, as we were asked by Bishop Fellay, and for trust in the Church. The Immaculate Virgin, who we will particularly honor during this month of May, will obtain for us all the necessary graces, if we want nothing other than the victory of Her Son and of the Church.


1. Fr. Simoulin makes reference to Bishop Williamson’s warning about the dangers of getting stuck into “fiftyism”, that is, into a particular period of the history of the Church…


Frankly, Fr. Pfeiffer pretty much refuted just about everything in this letter. I find it sad that the SSPX, an organization founded on rejecting false obedience, is now appealing to obedience that they have no right to.


Sun Jun 03, 2012 7:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Did anyone hear something about this?

http://wordpress.catholicapedia.net/?p=2121
Quote:
Nous vous l’annoncions depuis deux mois… Tout était signé en Mars…
la fraternité c’est fini !

l’œuvre de mgr lefebvre est détruite !

Le fax aurait été envoyé à tous les Supérieurs de District :

La Fraternité change de nom !

Les statuts sont changés !

Tout était signé en mars, et il a fallu ces deux mois pour les transferts de propriété.

L’annonce sera officialisée demain matin sur le site La Porte Latine.

Tous les prêtres qui ne sont pas d’accord, seront exclus et chassés de suite ! Nous ne savons rien sur la position des Évêques mais leur inaction depuis deux mois (à part une lettre sans aucun effet) nous amène à nous poser cette question :

Pourquoi aucune réaction sérieuse ?

Pour empêcher toute réaction ?

Si nous étions informés de cette trahison, est-il pensable qu’eux aussi n’aient pas été informés eux-mêmes !

La trahison et l’apostasie sont achevées !

Nous sommes entrés dans l’heure des ténèbres… et les châtiments vont affluer !


A quick translation


We have announced it to you since two months ago... everything was signed on March. The SSPX is over.
The work of Arch. Lefebvre is destroyed.

It seems the fax was already sent to all the district superiors:
The SSPX changes its name!
The statutes have changed.

Everything was arranged (signed) on March, and these two months were necessary in order to transfer the properties.
The anounce will be made public tomorrow in the site “La Porte Latine”.

Every priest who disagrees will be inmediately fired. We don´t know the reaction of the Bishops but their inaction since two months ago (except one letter who had no effect at all) lead us to ask this question:

Why there was no serious reaction?
In order to prevent any reaction?

If we were informed about this treachery, is it possible that they were not aware of it?

Treachery and apostasy are accomplished.

We are in the hours of darkness and the chastisemnts will pour in.

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

Leon Bloy


Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:57 pm
Posts: 8
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Quote:
I have not had much opportunity to be around many SSPX priests, but the few I have heard preach have never sounded as this man.


When I was attending the SSPX Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer (fr. Joseph Pfeiffer's brother) was our parish priest at one point. I am not surprised by Fr. Pfeiffer's stance, even if his rhetoric came across as (only) slightly more emphatic than his brother's typical sermon. If there was ever a priest that I would think could be likened to St. Paul in his fervor and zeal in preaching, it would be Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer. I have often wondered how similar his brother was, and now I know.

It is because of the frequency with which I heard great powerhouse sermons re: the spiritual life, anti-modernism, etc., from SSPX priests that I cannot imagine the majority of the SSPX priests being fine with being integrated into the Novus Ordo, at least not long-term. I could see that many of them might, IMO naively, go along with the idea that they will be able to maintain their independence and their freedom to criticize the Novus Ordo and its heresies (oh, wait, I mean "errors"), but when it is eventually apparent that they are not able to be the priests they thought they were going to be when they were ordained, I am convinced many of them will leave the SSPX.

Also, given the fervency and numbers of young men I personally know who have lately become SSPX priests, I cannot but think that down the road at the very least a 60/40 split favoring resistance is more likely than the other way around.


Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:16 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
The news today from Rome, is apparently that "rome" has rejected Bishop Fellay's text.

From La Croix:

[In Bishop Fellay's text] there remained however formulations judged non-acceptable by Rome, notably the mention of the "errors of the council": to put it clearly, the Society may have reservation on this or that point of Vatican II (freedom of conscience, interreligious dialogue, ecumenism), but they cannot speak of the "errors of the council".

This is wonderful news, a real defeat for the "deal" and it reveals that Bishop Fellay remains committed to speaking of "errors" in Vatican II.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:40 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
And now the news that only six days before they were due to be ordained, several members of the traditional Franciscan and Dominican communities, while they were in retreat preparing for their ordination, have been told via fax to their superiors, that they will not be ordained on June 29.

Bishop Fellay is demanding some new expression of loyalty from the superiors of these orders.

This is being seen as a declaration of war on the traditional religious orders.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Comments from Bp Fellay on a blog 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.




This appears to be the danger of the sedeplenist position. That despite all the errors, benedict is pope, as are all the novus ordo bishops, true Bishops. It is a mystery, and perhaps it might be Gods way to " convert" benedict to the true Faith, and he then show the world great humility by becoming a consecrated Bishop, and turning over Vatican II. Like St. Paul's conversion, it would be a miraculous event, and would show the world the Greater Glory of God. It would me thinks be the fastest way to restore the Mystical Body of Christ.


In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:44 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Well, Vince, it would certainly be the answer to a lot of prayers, because most trads pray for him, and no doubt quite hard!

What's disturbing is the clear indication that Bishop Fellay still wants to employ the blunt instrument to obtain agreement. It doesn't bode well for the General Chapter. An SSPX member told me that the general opinion is it will be an ugly meeting. Well it certainly will be now. Up until this, Bishop Fellay was only clearly guilty of things which arose from changing his mind (e.g. his letter to the three bishops, his interviews soft-peddling on V2, wanting to do the deal, etc.). Abstracting, of course, from his treatment of Bishop Williamson, which is a separate matter. But this latest act is of an entirely different character. As somebody pointed out, the families of the ordinands would already have booked flights, accommodation, etc., so he has gravely inconvenienced and personally offended a lot of people.

He is very bad at politics!

This forces to occur what didn't need to occur - that one of the other bishops will perform ordinations for the religious orders. No doubt whoever it is will wait until after the General Chapter so as not to further inflame the situation beforehand, and almost certainly to be excluded from the meeting.

Bishop Fellay has used the threat of this before now, of course, against the Dominicans, so they have experience. But that was then, and it wasn't a cancellation of an ordination, it was just the threat of no more ordinations. If memory serves, that's how the Dominicans were gotten to "reconsider" their position on the new rite of episcopal consecration, which they had the "wrong" view on...

Taking the longer view, the alienation of the three bishops is a good thing. It frees up the religious orders to do their own thinking without undue pressure.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
This forces to occur what didn't need to occur - that one of the other bishops will perform ordinations for the religious orders. No doubt whoever it is will wait until after the General Chapter so as not to further inflame the situation beforehand, and almost certainly to be excluded from the meeting.


Well it seems at least Bp Williamson is already excluded according to this:

Quote:
Excellencies, and Superiors,

As you know, our Superior General responded to the letter of the 16th March from Cardinal Levada who tried to impose the doctrinal Preamble of the 14th September 2011. By this document, dated 15th April, he wished to break free from the impasse created by this Preamble. According to several concurring sources, the new text seemed to satisfy the Sovereign Pontiff.

On the 13th June, 2012, Cardinal Levada returned to our Superior General his text of April, but it was amended in such a way that it still took up, in substance, the propositions of September, 2011. Msgr. Fellay also made known to him that he could not sign this new document, which was clearly unacceptable. The coming General Chapter will permit the analysis of the entire dossier.

Moreover, I inform all the members of the Chapter, that in virtue of Canon 2331, Paragraph 1 and 2 (New Code 1373) the Superior General has deprived Msgr. Williamson of his office as member of the Chapter for taking a position calling for a rebellion, and for his continually repeated disobedience. He has equally forbidden him to come to Econe for the ordinations.

Finally, Msgr. Fellay has deferred the ordinations of the Dominicans of Avrille and the Capuchins of Morgon, who were foreseen to have been ordained at Econe this coming 29th June. The putting off of orders was dictated simply by the wish of Bishop Fellay to be assured of the loyalty of these communities, before laying hands upon their candidates (cf. I Timothy 5:22).

Be assured Excellencies and Superiors of my respectful and faithful priestly wishes.

Fr. Christian Thouvenot.


The original is here and the translation is correct http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Le ... zingen-new

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

Leon Bloy


Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Quote:
What's disturbing is the clear indication that Bishop Fellay still wants to employ the blunt instrument to obtain agreement. It doesn't bode well for the General Chapter


Indeed a very tense time for the SSPX,not to mention their General Chapter ! Looks like hammer and tongs for all not saying Yes to everything Bp. Fellay wants.

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:53 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
I wonder what would happen if Bishop Williamson showed up and just walked in? Would Bishop Fellay call the police, cancel the meeting, what? :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
John Lane wrote:
I wonder what would happen if Bishop Williamson showed up and just walked in? Would Bishop Fellay call the police, cancel the meeting, what? :)


Will he?


Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:22 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Once again I will say, the Bishop has crossed the Rubicon. :cry:


Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:45 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Quote:
Bishop Fellay has used the threat of this before now, of course, against the Dominicans, so they have experience. But that was then, and it wasn't a cancellation of an ordination, it was just the threat of no more ordinations. If memory serves, that's how the Dominicans were gotten to "reconsider" their position on the new rite of episcopal consecration, which they had the "wrong" view on...


John, do you have any more details about this? Did the Dominicans publish anything against the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration that you are aware of? I'd be very interested to read any such thing (I can read French too, if necessary). I'm aware of the Dominicans writing in favour of validity, but not against.

In caritas Christi
James


Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:24 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
James, I am not sure if they published anything, but it's well known that Bishop Tissier is close to them and he doubts the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration. The letter from him indicating this was addressed to Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P. They were well-known for expressing privately some very "right wing" views, and this got to the attention of Econe. I also suspect that the "Little Catechism on Sedevacantism" was produced for the same reason - that is, to head off the threat not to ordain their men in future. This threat was certainly made.

It's sad, but that's what happens when men are subjected to intolerable pressure.

That's why if no other good comes from this almighty mess, the liberation of the traditional orders will be a great boon.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Well, I am so physically and mentally tired of the present situation of our poor Church, I have almost given up. I really wish God would "...kick a** and take names..." as we used to say in the Army. I know I won't live long enough to see the Church restored, and I cannot see how my children will survive these days with undamaged Faith either. After all, I don't think my prayers are worth very much...I don't see how they can be...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: The Ultimatum (SSPX/Rome)
Ken, I think I understand how you feel. I often feel like that myself. When I catch myself falling into gloom, I immediately stop reading anything theological or controversial for at least a few days; I simply pray my rosary and read cheerful stuff like P.G. Wodehouse (a great tonic in these times). Going for walks helps, as does- brief- meditation on such sayings of Our Lord as "Courage- I have overcome the world". If we surrender to Divine Providence (and I recommend that little work by de Caussade be committed to memory, read and read again), we sleep easy, knowing that Our Lord is in charge, and nothing matters except remaining in the state of grace.
I will say a prayer for you Ken.

In caritas Christi
James


Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:21 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


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

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