|
|
Angelqueen.org
For Purity and Tradition in
Catholicism
|
Society of Saint Pius X awaits “yes” answer from Pope
-
Bishop Fellay compared
to Judas
|
|
View previous topic
:: View next topic
|
|
Author
|
Message
|
|
Tom
Moderator
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 17944
Location: Central Massachusetts
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 10:01
am Post subject:
Society of Saint Pius X awaits “yes” answer from Pope
|
|
|
|
|
[Society
of Saint Pius X] awaits “yes” answer
from Pope
The process for the Society of St. Pius X’s
return to full communion with Rome is expected to be concluded by the end of May
andrea tornielli
vatican city
5/6/12
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefbvrians-lefebvrianos-14930/
The response sent to the Vatican on 17 April by
Bishop Bernard Fellay will be examined in the
next few days by the cardinal and bishop members in Ordinary Session of
the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, commonly known as Feria Quarta; their
decision will then be submitted to Benedict XVI. The process which should
lead the Society of St. Pius X – founded by Mgr.
Lefebvre - to return to full communion with the Catholic Church is expected to
conclude by the end of May. Twenty four years have passed since the
illegitimate consecrations that led to the split from Rome and the excommunication
of the traditionalist archbishop and four priests whom he ordained
bishops without the Pope’s approval. When the final decision is
announced, the content of the doctrinal preamble - that the Holy See
presented Fellay and the Fraternity with and
which the Fraternity’s leader sent back to Rome proposing some
minor modifications - will also be published.
In recent days, statements by some authoritative
figures of the Society of St. Pius X have multiplied, particularly from
the Lefebvrian wing that is more favourable towards the Society’s
return to full communion with the Catholic Church. In a public conference in Hattersheim, Germany, Fellay’s
First Assistant Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, said that under the current
circumstances, the Fraternity’s superior does not “believe
it is possible to turn down the Pope’s proposal.”
He said that straying from the Pope’s wishes would lead to BLEEP!. Pfluger pointed out that
there is still some disagreement between the Holy See and the Fraternity
and the latter claims the right to freely criticise
certain points contained in the conciliar
documents. He recalled how in 1988, Lefebvre had signed a doctrinal
agreement with the Holy See which contained “many
more (doctrinal Ed.)concessions by the Fraternity than those
Benedict XVI is asking for today.”
The former superior of the Society of St. Pius X,
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, wrote an equally
important editorial in the May issue of the Fraternity’s
monthly
magazine which says: “The fact that Rome is now calling us back from
the exile we were forced into in 1975 - with the abrogation of the”
Fraternity’s canonical “approval”, and “set in stone in 1988 with the degree ordering the excommunication “
of consecrating and consecrated bishops” - “is an act of justice and
undoubtedly an act of authentic pastoral care by Benedict XVI.”
Even more important, is the editorial of another historical member of
the Fraternity, Fr. Michele Simoulin, which was
published in the May issue of the Seignadou
bulletin published by the Saint-Joseph-des-Carmes
priory. Fr. Simoulin also talks about the
agreement reached between Lefebvre and Ratzinger
in 1988, explaining that the version of the doctrinal preamble presented
at the time was not the reason for the split; the real reason was a more
practical one. Indeed, Lefebvre did not trust the Vatican’s reassurance regarding the
possibility of consecrating a bishop as his successor: “The
reason has nothing to do with doctrine or the statute presented to
the Fraternity,” Fr. Simoulin wrote. “The
reason why the process came to a halt was to do with the date of consecration
of the conceded bishop.”
About the objections among Lefebvrians
who do not want an agreement with Rome, Fr. Simoulin
recalled that when Ratzinger “became
Pope
he told us that the Tridentine mass has never
been abrogated (7 July 2007: “Hence it is licit to celebrate the Sacrifice of
the Mass in accordance with the typical edition of the Roman Missal
promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated”);
he reinstated our four bishops (21January 2009); he allowed us to hold
doctrinal discussions for two years, things which Mgr. Lefebvre did not
demand back in 1988. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Mgr. Fellay obtained more than what Mgr. Lefebvre had
asked for, despite not having the status or moral authority to do so. So
should we demand more of Mgr. Lefebvre and Mgr. Fellay?”
Simoulin concluded stressing that today’s
situation
is different from what it was in 1975 and 1988 and those who claim the
opposite do so because they reject “any form of reconciliation with Rome”
perhaps showing “alack of faith in the sanctity of the Church.”
“The Society of St. Pius X is not the Church and cannot respect
the legacy of its founder who by conserving its spirit shows his love for
the Church and his wish to serve it as a loving son.”
Reading over the doctrinal part of the “protocol
of accord” signed by Lefebvre on 5 May 1988, is useful in understanding
part of the content of the doctrinal preamble frequently discussed in
recent months. The content of this preamble has remained confidential
because of the potential need for modifications or alterations to the
expressions used within it – changes which were foreseen from the
start. The founder of the Fraternity promised loyalty to the Pope,
stating that he “accepted the
doctrine on the ecclesiastical magisterium contained in point no. 25 of
the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the
Second Vatican Council and adherence to it.”
In
relation to the dissent on certain conciliar
passages, he stated: “In relation to
certain points that are taught by the Second Vatican Council or that relate to later
reforms of the liturgy and the law which do not appear to us easily
reconcilable with tradition, we are making efforts to adopt a positive
attitude and to communicate with the Apostolic See, a voiding any
controversy.” Lefebvre also stated that he “recognise[d] the validity of the sacrifice of the
mass and
the sacraments celebrated with the aim of following what the Church does,
according to the rites described in the typical editions of the Roman
missal and the rituals for the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI
and John Paul II.” Finally, he promised “to
respect the Church’s common discipline and ecclesiastical laws.”
As was also the case in 1988, the agreement reached
with then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
set down in black and white that there were “certain
points” which Lefebvrians considered as not “easily
reconcilable with tradition”. But this dissent should not have prevented
full communion. Forty four years ago, events took a different path: a
schism formed and there were some excommunications. Now, almost a quarter
of a century later, this wound could finally be healed.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columba
Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1988
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:46
am Post subject: Re:
Society of Saint Pius X awaits “yes” answer from Pope
|
|
|
|
|
andrea tornielli wrote:
|
|
The founder of the Fraternity promised
loyalty to the Pope, stating that he “accepted
the doctrine on the ecclesiastical magisterium
contained in point no. 25 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council and
adherence to it.”
|
|
LUMEN
GENTIUM wrote:
|
|
25. Among the principal duties of
bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who
lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is,
teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people
committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice,
and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring
forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making
it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their
flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are
to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In
matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ
and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a
religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be
shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium
of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that
is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium
is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely
adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will
in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents,
from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner
of speaking.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of
infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly
whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still
maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the
successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and
morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be
held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together
in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and
morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to
with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church
to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far
as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded
and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman
Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his
office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful,
who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he
proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his
definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are
justly styled irreformable, since they are
pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed
Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow
an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not
pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of
the universal Church, in whom the charism of
infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is
expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)
The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of
Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium
with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the
Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same
Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and
progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with
him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation
itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with,
that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is
transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of
bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which
under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved
and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the
bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by
fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that
revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new
public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine
deposit of faith.(47*)
|
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
penitent99
†
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 4807
Location: Novus Ordo
Hell
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 1:58
pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
LUMEN
GENTIUM wrote:
|
|
This religious submission of mind and
will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is
not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that
his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with
reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to,
according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the
matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from
his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of
speaking.
|
This certainly seems to mean, in plain English,
anyway, that if Bp. Fellay has really signed
off on this that the Society will have to accept the hermeneutics of
continuity line, Hegelian dialectics, male prostitute condoms, and on and
on and on...
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 104
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 7:58
pm Post subject: Re:
Society of Saint Pius X awaits “yes” answer
from
Pope
|
|
|
|
|
Tom
wrote:
|
|
[Society of Saint Pius X] awaits “yes” answer from Pope
The process for the Society of St. Pius X’s return to full communion
with Rome is expected to be concluded by the end of May
andrea tornielli
vatican city
5/6/12
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefbvrians-lefebvrianos-14930/
The response sent to the Vatican on 17 April by Bishop Bernard Fellay will be examined in the next few days by the
cardinal and bishop members in Ordinary Session of the Congregation of
the Doctrine for the Faith, commonly known as Feria
Quarta; their decision will then be submitted
to Benedict XVI. The process which should lead the Society of St. Pius
X – founded by Mgr. Lefebvre
- to return to full communion with the Catholic Church is expected to
conclude by the end of May. Twenty four years have passed since the illegitimate
consecrations that led to the split from Rome and the excommunication
of the traditionalist archbishop and four priests whom he ordained
bishops without the Pope’s approval. When the
final decision is announced, the content of the doctrinal preamble - that
the Holy See presented Fellay and the
Fraternity with and which the Fraternity’s
leader sent back to Rome proposing some minor modifications - will also be
published.
In recent days, statements by some authoritative figures of the Society
of St. Pius X have multiplied, particularly from the Lefebvrian wing that is more favourable
towards the Society’s return to full
communion with the Catholic Church. In a public conference in Hattersheim, Germany, Fellay’s First Assistant Fr. Niklaus Pfluger,
said that under the current circumstances, the Fraternity’s superior does not “believe it is possible to turn down the
Pope’s proposal.”
He said that straying from the Pope’s wishes would lead to
BLEEP!. Pfluger
pointed out that there is still some disagreement between the Holy See
and the Fraternity and the latter claims the right to freely criticise certain points contained in the conciliar documents. He recalled how in 1988,
Lefebvre had signed a doctrinal agreement with the Holy See which
contained “many more (doctrinal
Ed.)concessions by the Fraternity than those
Benedict XVI is asking for today.”
The former superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Franz Schmidberger, wrote an equally important editorial
in the May issue of the Fraternity’s monthly
magazine which says: “The fact that Rome
is now calling us back from the exile we were forced into in
1975 - with the abrogation of the”
Fraternity’s canonical “approval”,
and “set in stone in 1988 with the degree
ordering the excommunication “
of consecrating and consecrated bishops” -
“is an act of justice and undoubtedly an act of authentic
pastoral care by Benedict XVI.”
Even more important, is the editorial of another historical member of the
Fraternity, Fr. Michele Simoulin, which was
published in the May issue of the Seignadou
bulletin published by the Saint-Joseph-des-Carmes
priory. Fr. Simoulin also talks about the
agreement reached between Lefebvre and Ratzinger
in 1988, explaining that the version of the doctrinal preamble
presented at the time was not the reason for the split; the real reason
was a more practical one. Indeed, Lefebvre did not trust the Vatican’s reassurance regarding the possibility of consecrating
a bishop as his successor: “The
reason has nothing to do with doctrine or the statute presented to
the Fraternity,” Fr. Simoulin wrote. “The reason why the
process came to a halt was to do with the date of consecration of the
conceded bishop.”
About the objections among Lefebvrians who do
not want an agreement with Rome, Fr. Simoulin
recalled that when Ratzinger “became Pope he told us that the Tridentine mass has never been abrogated (7 July
2007: “Hence it is licit to
celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass in accordance with the typical edition of
the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never
abrogated”); he reinstated our
four bishops
(21January 2009); he allowed us to hold doctrinal discussions for two
years, things which Mgr. Lefebvre did not demand back in 1988. It would
not be an exaggeration to say that Mgr. Fellay
obtained more than what Mgr. Lefebvre had asked for, despite not having
the status or moral authority to do so. So should we demand more of
Mgr. Lefebvre and Mgr. Fellay?” Simoulin concluded
stressing that today’s situation is
different from what it was in 1975 and 1988 and those who claim
the opposite do so because they reject “any
form of reconciliation with Rome”
perhaps showing “alack of faith in the
sanctity of the Church.” “The Society
of St. Pius X is not the Church and cannot respect the
legacy of its founder who by conserving its spirit shows his love for
the Church and his wish to serve it as a loving son.”
Reading over the doctrinal part of the “protocol
of accord” signed by Lefebvre on 5 May 1988, is useful in understanding
part of the content of the doctrinal preamble frequently discussed in
recent months. The content of this preamble has remained confidential
because of the potential need for modifications or alterations to the
expressions used within it –
changes which were foreseen from the start. The founder
of the Fraternity promised loyalty to the Pope, stating that he “accepted the doctrine on the
ecclesiastical magisterium contained in point
no. 25 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium
of the Second Vatican Council and adherence to it.” In relation to the dissent on certain conciliar passages, he stated: “In relation to certain points that are taught by the
Second Vatican Council or that relate to later reforms of the liturgy
and the law which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with
tradition, we are making efforts to adopt a positive attitude and to
communicate with the Apostolic See, a voiding any controversy.” Lefebvre also stated that he “recognise[d] the
validity of the sacrifice of the mass and the sacraments celebrated
with the aim of following what the Church does, according to the rites
described in the typical editions of the Roman missal and the rituals
for the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.” Finally, he promised “to respect the Church’s common discipline
and ecclesiastical laws.”
As was also the case in 1988, the agreement reached with then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
set down in black and white that there were “certain points” which Lefebvrians
considered as not “easily reconcilable
with tradition”. But this dissent should not have prevented
full communion. Forty four years ago, events took a different path: a
schism formed and there were some excommunications. Now, almost a
quarter of a century later, this wound could finally be healed.
|
Tom:
You have edited the title of the article replacing
the word “Lefebvrians”
with the
“Society of St. Pius X.” This
editing changes the impression that Adrea Tornielli is intending to make. Tornielli
uses the word “Lefebvrians”
to characterize those members of the SSPX considered loyal to Bishop Fellay who seek an accommodation with Rome in line
with the “hermeneutics of continuity” paradigm of Pope Benedict. It
is intended to stigmatize those SSPX members who reject the “hermeneutic
of continuity” paradigm as ‘anti-Lefebvrians.’ It may also be the intention by Rome to use the name “Lefebvrians” for Bishop Fellay’s followers when he is
regularized.
I would not call Tornielli
a good reporter. He is clearly used by Roman authorities as a media
outlet for information they want publicized. Most of the “facts”
in his news articles have proven to be accurate, but a reporter who only plays
the shill can never be called a “good
reporter.” Tornielli’s articles are clearly goal directed, as
evident in this current article, where he is creating a false historical
impression that Archbishop Lefebvre would agree with the accommodation
structured by Bishop Fellay. Everything that
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote from 1988 until his death makes this claim a
bald lie. The attempt to enroll Archbishop Lefebvre in the “hermeneutic of continuity”
is a form of theft. Those that honor his memory should be coming to his defense and
the defense of the Catholic faith and purity of worship for which he
lived and died.
I posted Tornielli’s
article last
evening with my judgment concerning Bishop Fellay’s
betrayal
of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society that he founded. The post was
deleted. It should not have been. Everyone who has supported the SSPX
both spiritually and materially has right to a fair and open presentation as to the exact nature of this
division. Bishop Williamson has recently posted that the other three
bishops do not agree with Bishop Fellay and I
have had independent confirmation from contacts in the German district
that Bishop Fellay has signed the agreement and
the other three bishops will not go along with him.
The split is done. The nature of it has be understood by all.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 104
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:16
pm Post subject: Re:
Society of Saint Pius X awaits “yes” answer
from
Pope
|
|
|
|
|
This comment on Andrea Tornielli's
atricle was previously posted but deleted. I
think that decision should be respectfully reconsidered. I expect that it
would meet with the approval of three of the bishops of the SSPX.
Drew
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
"Lefebvrians"
await “yes” answer
from Pope
The process for the Society of St. Pius X’s
return to full communion with Rome is expected to be concluded by the end of May
andrea tornielli
vatican city
5/6/12
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefbvrians-lefebvrianos-14930/
This is a shallow piece of historical revisionism that demonstrates the
principle that a half truth ends up with a greater lie. If this article
were true, then everything we have heard in the past from the Bishop Fellay regarding a “state
of emergency” has been nothing but a bag of air.
Then again, on what possible grounds could Bishop Fellay
have believed that a “state of
emergency” actually existed? In truth, the “doctrinal discussions” that were conducted
between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican
were never doctrinal discussions; they were an engagement in ecumenical
dialogue. It was an ecumenical dialogue by the consent of both parties.
It could have been nothing else because both parties in the dialogue
accepted the “hermeneutic of continuity” paradigm of Pope Benedict. Under this model there
can be neither real truths to define nor errors to condemn, only
unfortunate misunderstandings to be ironed out. The end of ecumenical
dialogue is an accommodation of error and an utterly false human hope
that a mutual understanding will forge a future convergence in doctrine
and worship. It has been evident for a long time that Bishop Fellay would sign the two part Doctrinal Preamble.
The first part of the Doctrinal Preamble is an agreement not to
criticize the “authentic magisterium,” that is, the person of the Pope, except
in the most measured and benign terms regardless of the gravity of any
doctrinal error or sin committed. The second part requires his
signature to the 1989 “Profession of
Faith” which includes his internal “submission
of the mind and will,” or as Lumen Gentium phrases it, “submission of the soul” to any and every human
judgment of the “authentic magisterium”
that he has already agreed not to criticize. This is an act of
idolatry because an unconditional internal submission of the mind and
will, a submission of the soul, can only be given to God. If the “authentic magisterium”
wants to obtain the internal submission mind and will, the
submission of the soul, it can only do so to God, and this can only be
done by engaging the infallible Magisterium,
that is, the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His
Church.
Bishop Felly has betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre, the priest and religious
of the SSPX and all traditional Catholics by the most callous
indifferentism, that is, seeking place for truth to sit at the table of
errors. The great archetype of all betrayal belongs to a Catholic prelate,
Bishop Judas Iscariot, and this betrayal is that to which all betrayals
are necessarily measured.
Judas had no idea about the gravity of his sin which is evidenced by
his subsequent suicide. Once he had decided that his worldly ambitions
would not be met by remaining in the company of our Lord, he made the
prudential decision to get what he could get before moving along. He
never imagined the consequences of his sin. After all, Judas had
witnessed the attempt of the Nazarenes to throw Jesus off a cliff. He
saw the Pharisees attempt numerous times to apprehend Jesus without
success even taking up stones to cast at Him, yet they were never able
to make good on their designs. Thus his advice to the Pharisees, “Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; lay hold on him,
and lead him away carefully”
(Mark 14:44). Judas thought that he could collect his 30 pieces of silver,
deliver Jesus to the Jews and then slip away from Jesus as easily as
Jesus would slip away from the Jews. The substance of the crime in
itself is as common as a weed in a garden. What made Judas’ crime so exceptional are the accidents, that is, the
person of Jesus, the Son of God, and the dignity of state to which
Judas had been raised, an apostle and bishop of the Catholic Church.
The betrayal by Bishop Fellay is similar in
this regard in that the gravity of the crime is due to the nature of
the offender and the subject of offense, and in both, the matter is
most grave. Archbishop Lefebvre in his last communication to Cardinal Ratzinger called for necessary revisions to
heretical statements in the documents of Vatican II. The proximate
cause for the consecration of the four bishops in 1988 was the Prayer
Meeting at Assisi. Archbishop Lefebvre’s
letter to the cardinals in opposition to this blasphemy was
never retracted. Nothing has changed since that time. Bishop Fellay had no business accepting the consecration
in 1988 if he rejected Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on these essential points.
During Bishop Fellay’s ecumenical dialogue over the last two
years Pope Benedict has greeted Rowan Williams, the pretend Archbishop
of Canterbury, and his female “priestette” in liturgical costume, prayed with Jews
in synagogues, visited the monastery shrine of the Martin Luther, told
Catholics that the doctrine of Religious Liberty “demands” their acceptance of Moslem mosques
being built in Germany, convoked Assisi Prayer Meeting III,
approved the Neo-catechumenal Way, pushed his “reform of the reform”
that seeks to create a single rite of Mass by integrating
the “ordinary” and
the “extra-ordinary” forms of the “one Roman rite,” introduced his “new
evangelization” that seeks
convergence the Catholic Church and not conversion for any Jew, infidel, heretic
or schismatic; a pretended “unity
in diversity.” He has called for the establishment of a
one-world government with “teeth”
with a one-world financial and monetary institution as a necessary measure to
insure world justice and peace. Not one of these acts had any bearing
upon the ecumenical dialogue between Bishop Fellay
and the Vatican. All these acts are objectively grave sins against the
faith to which Bishop Fellay has by God’s providence been called to defend. He has defended
nothing.
Bishop Fellay was consecrated a bishop by
Archbishop Lefebvre for this very purpose to defend doctrinal truth and
liturgical purity of the Latin rite. Traditional Catholics have made
countless sacrifices over the last fifty years to preserve the Faith
and purity of liturgical practice for themselves and their families.
When at last the opportunity is presented to effectively demand from
Rome a formal declaration from the Chair of Peter on matters of
doctrine and liturgical worship it is wasted away in ecumenical
dialogue.
A few years ago I traveled to a SSPX chapel where the sacrament of
confirmation was administered by Bishop Fellay.
Bishop Fellay gave a talk that was to be
followed by a question and answer session. The talk began in
mid-afternoon with a large crown present. After two and one-half hours
of boring monologue the audience dwindled to a handful. At last, I
could not stay any longer so I never learned if the question and answer
session was ever done. During Bishop Fellay’s talk he made one interesting and revealing remark. He spoke
about a Novus Ordo priest, “out of spite,” going into a wine cellar and saying, “This is My blood” and consecrating
all the wine in the cellar, going into a bakery and saying, “This is My body,” and consecrating all the bread
in the bakery. I was dumbfounded to learn that someone with such a
profound ignorance of basic sacramental theology was directing the
defense of traditional Catholic doctrine and worship.
Bishop Fellay will soon learn that no one
likes a traitor, not those he betrays or those who benefit from his
betrayal. Our Lord’s warning is most applicable, “And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be
required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand
the more” (Luke 12-48). Dante places
Judas in the very depth of hell because of the sin of ingratitude and
ingratitude is the characteristic quality of betrayal. I will not be
surprised to someday learn that is was Bishop Fellay
who initiated the contact with Rome asking, “What will you give me, and I will deliver (them)
unto you?” (Matt. 26:15).
Drew
|
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
St. Gertrude
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
Posts: 920
Location: Salt Lake City
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:26
pm Post subject: Re:
PRAY
|
|
|
|
|
Rosary
wrote:
|
|
WE must just PRAY OUR LADY will
protect, guide and direct and hold directly in her own hands the fate
of this--for to be IN with ROME is as it has been a falling away of
Tradition, of God's Laws ect..or we who have
remained in the desert of the Fore Fathers have fought and suffered
much in seeing the destruction of the Mass the Faith worldwide---God
help us all that we may not fall into the same modernism of the Norvus Ordo who threw out
our altars, statues, prayers and crucifixes so many years ago...yes,
God help us all and especially the SSPX now..and
My God hold directly unto the Pope as well,, who needs many many prayers !! HAIL MARY !!
|
I have doubled my rosaries over the last month.
Just today another TO/SSPX and I were talking about how--before the mass
was stolen from us--a man had painted a gorgeous picture of the Sacred
Heart. It was on a side altar in the Cathedral. Fast forward several
decades. The Cathedral has been wreckovated and
features new age symbols and other pagan things. A woman who was working
in the Cathedral basement found the painting (it was apparently on a
trash pile or even in the actual garbage) asked if she could have it and
a priest told her she could take it. So now she has it in her home,
guarding it. Can you even IMAGINE throwing the Sacred Heart in the
garbage? This is but one of the ongoing abuses that have occurred and continue
to occur in this "progressive" diocese. And so I pray for the
Pope, and for all of those who are shepherds of souls.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Catherine
†
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 203
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:27
pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Your
post got removed last night and with good cause. How dare you call one of
Christ's anointed a Betrayer and compare him to Judas. You disrespect a
priest, not to mention your words are filled with speculation and
calumny. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 104
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:41
pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Catherine
wrote:
|
|
Your post got removed last night and
with good cause. How dare you call one of Christ's anointed a Betrayer
and compare him to Judas. You disrespect a priest, not to mention your
words are filled with speculation and calumny. Shame on you.
|
Catherine:
Judas was “one of Christ’s
anointed” and nearly every heresy, nearly every betrayal, in the Church was
started by “one of Christ’s anointed”
including the mess we have in the Church today.
Calumny is the “untruthful
imputation of some fault not actually committed.”
If I have lied, then point out the lie; and if I have spoken truthfully, why the
complaint?
There is little speculation in my post.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
timwhit
Admin
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 7344
Location: Portland, Maine
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:43
pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Calling
a time out on this one.
_________________
Kyrie Eleison.
Cor Immaculatum Mariae, ora pro nobis.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Catherine
†
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 205
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:55
pm Post subject:
Bishop Fellay compared to Judas by "Br
Joseph"
|
|
|
|
|
What
made Judas’ crime so exceptional are the
accidents, that is, the person of Jesus, the Son of God, and the dignity
of state to which Judas had been raised, an apostle and bishop of the
Catholic Church.
The
betrayal by Bishop Fellay is similar in this
regard in that the gravity of the crime is due to the nature of the
offender and the subject of offense, and in both, the matter is most
grave.
Do you know his heart, do you know his intentions?
Where is your proof that Bishop Fellay
has betrayed? You make an accusation, back it up with proof. You accuse
him of CRIMES! What crime has he committed? And exactly what deal has
Bishop Fellay made? You don't know ! IF in fact they are reconciling with Rome, not
one of us is privy to the details. So yes, you are spreading
disinformation and sowing further division with your rash judgment and
wild speculations. Keep your trap shut unless and until you can provide
proof that Bishop Fellay is a Betrayer.
I will not sit back and watch holy priests be
spoken of in such manner.
|
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catherine
†
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 205
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:59
pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
To
clarify:
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
What made Judas’ crime so exceptional are the
accidents, that is, the person of Jesus, the Son of God, and the
dignity of state to which Judas had been raised, an apostle and bishop
of the Catholic Church.
The betrayal by Bishop Fellay is similar in
this regard in that the gravity of the crime is due to the nature of
the offender and the subject of offense, and in both, the matter is
most grave.
|
Do you know his heart, do you know his intentions?
Where is your proof that Bishop Fellay
has betrayed? You make an accusation, back it up with proof. You accuse
him of CRIMES! What crime has he committed? And exactly what deal has
Bishop Fellay made? You don't know ! IF in fact they are reconciling with Rome, not
one of us is privy to the details. So yes, you are spreading
disinformation and sowing further division with your rash judgment and
wild speculations. Keep your trap shut unless and until you can provide
proof that Bishop Fellay is a Betrayer.
I will not sit back and watch holy priests be
spoken of in such manner.[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 555
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:02
pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
is a clown. He should be ignored.
|
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Columba
Joined: 27 Feb 2009
Posts: 1990
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:46
pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum wrote:
|
|
Drew is a clown. He should be ignored.
|
If you cannot address the issue, at least refrain
from personal attack.
|
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
St.Justin
†
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2834
Location: Pensacola, Florida
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 10:05
pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Columba
wrote:
|
|
Pax Vobiscum wrote:
|
|
Drew is a clown. He should be
ignored.
|
If you cannot address the issue, at least refrain
from personal attack.
|
At this point there is no issue except Drew's
imagination and he should control it much better than he is doing.
It seems all he is doing is attempting to sow
hatred and discontent among the members of this forum and seems to be
succeeding. I say ignore his antics ( call them
clown like if you must ) but ignore him.
|
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 105
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 10:13
pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Catherine
wrote:
|
|
To clarify:
|
Drew wrote:
|
|
What made Judas’ crime so exceptional are the accidents, that
is, the person of Jesus, the Son of God, and the dignity of state to
which Judas had been raised, an apostle and bishop of the Catholic
Church.
The betrayal by Bishop Fellay is similar in
this regard in that the gravity of the crime is due to the nature of
the offender and the subject of offense, and in both, the matter is
most grave.
|
Do you know his heart, do you know his
intentions?
Where is your proof that Bishop Fellay has betrayed? You make an accusation, back
it up with proof. You accuse him of CRIMES! What crime has he
committed? And exactly what deal has Bishop Fellay
made? You don't know ! IF in fact they are
reconciling with Rome, not one of us is privy to the details. So yes,
you are spreading disinformation and sowing further division with your
rash judgment and wild speculations. Keep your trap shut unless and
until you can provide proof that Bishop Fellay
is a Betrayer.
I will not sit back and watch holy priests be
spoken of in such manner.
|
Catherine:
Do you dispute that Archbishop Lefebvre, in his
defense of the Faith, wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger
as head of the CDF charging that the texts of the Vatican II documents
contained heresy and required necessary revisions?
Do you dispute that Archbishop Lefebvre, in his
defense of the Faith, accused the Pope of blasphemy for the Assisi Prayer
Meeting?
It is a matter of historical record that Archbishop
Lefebvre repudiated in his formal replies to the CDF the idea that the
Vatican II documents could be reconciled with Catholic tradition without
necessary revisions. This was done before Bishop Fellay
accepted Episcopal consecration. If Bishop Fellay
did not agree with Archbishop Lefebvre on these critical questions he
should not only have refused consecration, he should have left the SSPX
with those accepting regularization in 1988 because there could not
possibly be a “state of emergency” to justify
any other
action. By accepting the Episcopal consecration and the leadership of the
SSPX he has taken upon himself the duty of defending the purpose for
which that society was constituted. This he has failed to do.
If you can produce any evidence that Bishop Fellay has demanded necessary revisions of heretical
texts from Vatican II, where he has demanded specific doctrinal
declarations from the infallible Chair of Peter, where he has demanded
specific condemnations of false hermeneutics of the council, then produce
the evidence. Every Catholic has a right for clarity on questions of
faith and the Pope has the duty to provide it.
Bishop Fellay has
betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre on these essential points and accepted Pope
Benedict's paradigm of the “hermeneutic of continuity.”
This paradigm presupposes that the only problem with the documents of Vatican
II is one of a false “hermeneutic of rupture”
that can, through dialogue, be corrected, and if not through dialogue, then through
the required “submission of the mind and
will,” the “submission of the soul” to the
“authentic magisterium.” This is
not a matter
of speculation. It is a fact demonstrated over the several years by
Bishop Fellay's
failure to address these very issues that Archbishop Lefebvre spoke so forcefully and
eloquently about.
Archbishop Lefebvre never signed the 1989
Profession of Faith and we can conclude that his repudiation of the 1988
papal directive is evidence that he never would have signed such a
document if asked to do so.
If you learn that Bishop Fellay
has signed the Doctrinal Preamble with the two provisions as previously
described, http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=440302&highlight=#440302,
will you then agree that he has betrayed Archbishop
Lefebvre and the SSPX? Is your complaint only because you consider my
post premature without absolute definitive proof that he has already done
so?
Drew
|
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BACK
HOME
|
