Bishop Fellay’s Actions

QueriteDominum.blogspot.com
by G. Gilbert
June 27, 2012

I see this matter [of the discussions with the Pope and the CDF] as Bishop Fellay simply trying to do the right thing by manifesting his loyalty to the Pope in practice and not merely in theory.

There is absolutely no incontrovertible evidence (and conspiracy theories by anonymous authors do not constitute evidence) to suggest: (1) Bp. Fellay’s intentions are anything less than honorable and in accordance with what is and should be expected of a truly Catholic bishop; or (2) that he is looking at this problem set in a willfully negligent manner.

Absolutely none.

Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that Bishop Fellay is acting out of self-interest or out of personal ambition. Bp. Fellay, like his brother bishops, has spent his entire adult life fighting for Catholic truth as a pariah, and who, in my opinion, deserves the benefit of the doubt and the respect of those of us who consider ourselves “friends and benefactors” of the SSPX.

However, there is evidence to suggest that Bp. Williamson and certain individuals close to him have willfully undermined Bp. Fellay’s leadership. (See: angelqueen.org/2012/06/26/what-we-know-about-the-sspx-leakers/)

Furthermore, as much as I admire and respect Bp. Williamson (and I do so sincerely, as I have had the honor to have been confirmed by him, as did my wife), using a military analogy (and I do so because the Church is a hierarchy just as is the military, therefore I think the analogy holds), Bp. Williamson’s actions — over time, and cumulatively — are essentially insubordinate as they pertain to Bp. Fellay’s position as Superior General of the SSPX, and especially now as he treats with Rome.

This would not be as big a deal as it is right now, if we were simply talking about two bishops, each with no expectation of loyalty and/or obedience to the other, voicing their opinions on matters not affecting anyone else but themselves. (As many of you with military experience know, brother bishops, just as brother officers, can disagree on matters of policy up to the point where the commanding officer makes a decision. At that point, it is time to close ranks, keep your opinions to yourself, get behind the boss, and carry out the plan of the day.)

But, that’s not what we’re talking about: Bp. Fellay is Bp. Williamson’s superior general; his, “commanding general”, so to speak. Bp. Fellay has, in so many words, ordered Bp. Williamson to keep his opinions regarding this matter to himself… and Bp. Williamson has refused to do so. And Bp. Williamson’s “disobedience to lawful orders” is having obviously severe consequences not only on the Society’s relationship with the Church as a whole, but internally to the Society itself.

And, for this to happen right now — right at the very moment that the Society is on the verge of bringing the “fight” to “Rome” from “within the walls” — is, in my opinion a shameful disgrace. It makes the SSPX look like a laughing stock. It is “conduct unbecoming” an “officer” of the Church. It shows a lack of discipline, a lack of respect for authority, a lack of a practical understanding of hierarchy, a lack of unity.

In short, it is a repudiation of all of the values that the Society has claimed to defend these past 40 or so years. For, Catholic tradition doesn’t support the principle of rebellion against legitimate authority. Yet, that is precisely what is occurring right now. Although, I suspect that those who are against the Society’s negotiations with Rome are now calling into question Bp. Fellay’s legitimacy.
Without clear and incontrovertible evidence, I do not. There is no reason to believe that Bp. Fellay’s episcopate is illegitimate or that his intentions are evil… unless you want to call into question everything the SSPX has done since Abp. Lefebvre consecrated his successors against the will of the Holy Father. Because that is where this line of thinking leads, inevitably.

I am also reasonably certain that those who support the scuttling of the current negotiations with Rome see themselves as defending Catholic tradition.

I do not.

As I peruse the anarchnet looking for more information concerning these talks, I cannot help but notice that those who are against these negotiations are inching further and further towards a de facto sedevacantist mentality or sedevacantist sympathies, regardless of their protestations to the contrary.
I think this is a negative development.

Perhaps this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps, as is often the case, we are only seeing a part of the situation, being as we are merely laymen with no true inside knowledge of what is really going on. Perhaps, and I hope that is the case. I want to be wrong.

But, viewing this from the outside looking in, from the perspective of a career infantry officer who has experience actually leading men in, shall we say, “very difficult circumstances” (e.g., people trying to kill you), this whole episode — to me — is disgusting.

In Christo per Mariam,

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2012/06/27/4705/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

115 comments on “Bishop Fellay’s Actions

  1. Sorry about the title – that is fixed and my thanks to Mr. Gilbert for allowing me to publish his opinion.

    There are certainly a number of folks who have elevated regularization to the new superheresy, dwarfing even modernism, it would seem. As for the three SSPX Bishops, my personal feeling is none of them, including Bishop Williamson, would be interesting in organization a counter-SSPX, independent organization. The SSPX was originally erected legally and the Archbishop always maintained that it was illegally suppressed. There is no way to erect a legal entity like the SSPX outside the jurisdiction of the church. So, at best, they can start a “club”. But I don’t believe that Bp Tissier or de Galleretta are interested in that. They expressed their legitimate opinions to their superior and I believe they would consider it important to continue to do that within the SSPX, regardless of the regularization outcome.

    Of the three, I can see Bp Williamson offering his services to independent priests who “break away” from the SSPX umbrella but I don’t see him aiding the sedevacantists. He did that for a time once before but stopped when the SSPV found someone to consecrate Fr. Kelly.

  2. It really now is in the hands of the other 2 Bishops, go with Fellay and the Deal with the Pope or close ranks with Williamson and continue on their fight for TRADITION. I wonder if Fellay will go in alone, if he does he may not take the majority of priests and laity with him.

  3. Columba on said:

    Bp. Williamson’s actions — over time, and cumulatively — are essentially insubordinate […]
    I am also reasonably certain that those who support the scuttling of the current negotiations with Rome see themselves as defending Catholic tradition.

    Subordination to human officers take precedence over defending Catholic tradition? If Archbishop Lefebvre had not been “insubordinate,” the SSPX would have no Catholic tradition to defend.

    But, viewing this from the outside looking in, from the perspective of a career infantry officer who has experience actually leading men in, shall we say, “very difficult circumstances” (e.g., people trying to kill you), this whole episode — to me — is disgusting.

    The US Army fought for independence from the British Empire under Gen. George Washington, trained officer of the British Empire. Subordination to human authority is the norm, but not a moral absolute.

  4. I agree with Mr. Gilbert’s opinion, and those of GordonG and Vinny. But I find Columba’s purported “defense” of the sedevecantist anti-Fellay mentality disturbing.

    “Subordination to human officers take precedence over defending Catholic tradition? If Archbishop Lefebvre had not been “insubordinate,” the SSPX would have no Catholic tradition to defend.”

    “Subordination to human authority is the norm, but not a moral absolute.”

    By Columba’s opinion, the anti-Fellay folk now hold the moral high ground and are the ones who are right. They don’t even know what the so-called Vatican and SSPX personal prelature is about, and they are already in assasination mode. Based upon the comments on that “will-not-be-named anti-Fellay website” which is trying to garner support for a preemptive split from the SSPX, the sedevantist mentallity is alive and well. The total disrespect, name calling, character assasination, rash judgement and other horrible things directed toward Bishop Fellay is inexusable. These people have learned nothing by practicing traditional Catholicism. I respect Bp. Williamson only in his position as a Bishop. But it seems he is creating his own following via the sed’s. From the tone of Bp. W’s newsletters, it makes me wonder where ‘The Letter’ came from, who leaked it, and why. The odd joy that drips from his writings over the internal troubles of the SSPX heirarchy, is telling, as is the sudden running over to “his camp”. By their fruits you shall know them. Thanks to many of these self-appointed popes/saints of the Church, many SSPX chapels are under siege from within and are beginning to fall apart. The devil is laughing and jumping for joy.

  5. I don’t agree with Mr. Gilbert on the following points:
    1.” Bp. Williamson’s “disobedience to lawful orders”
    2.”right at the very moment that the Society is on the verge of bringing the “fight” to “Rome” from “within the walls”
    3 (What +Williamson is doing)…. is a repudiation of all of the values that the Society has claimed to defend these past 40 or so years. For, Catholic tradition doesn’t support the principle of rebellion against legitimate authority.
    4.But, viewing this from the outside looking in, from the perspective of a career infantry officer who has experience actually leading men in, shall we say, “very difficult circumstances” (e.g., people trying to kill you), this whole episode — to me — is disgusting.

    My response to the above points is as follows:
    1. The orders were not lawful in any sense of the word; +Fellay was trying to make a treaty with Rome in which the Vatican was attempting to induce him to accept Vatican II. +Williamson bravely sounded the alarm.
    2. Not at all. The moment when Rome succeeded partially in pulling the wool over +Fellay’s eyes; no group ever has “taken the fight within the wall” that is the same chimeric phrase uttered by all the groups that “rallied” to Rome. How many have “taken the fight within the walls”? The sad answer is “none.”
    3. On the contrary; it was +Williamson who upheld the values of Catholic truth and the fight of +Lefebvre at the very moment when +Fellay was negotiating a surrender. Sorry, but the Pope and the Roman curia repeatedly declared publicly that the SSPX had to accept Vatican II; and that was the whole purpose of the lifting of the excommunications/doctrinal talks/negotiations. +Fellay refused to believe either the Roman declarations or the warnings of his fellow trad priests and bishops; Warnings which turned out to be correct.
    4. I congratulate you on your bravery, but I don’t agree that you have correctly applied the analogy; +Bishop Fellay saw that all of his “reading between the lines” and his analysis of the “restorationist” tendencies of Benedict XVI all proved to be false. He was a commander who was leading his men into certain death without reason; and it was +Williamson the other two bishops and the brave priests such as Fr. Chazal, who turned out to be right: +Fellay was leading his army into an ambush, and the alarm had to be sounded.
    The evidence is clear; the June meeting in Rome was a trap in which +Fellay was once again presented with the very protocol that he had previously rejected.
    What was supposed to be the final vindication of his “negotiationist” policy, suddenly appeared for what it was: a total illusion of the supposed Roman good will towards the Catholic faith. The only “faith” that counts for modernist Rome is Council Vatican II.

    • tradical on said:

      Hi Michael,

      You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      1. +Williamson sounded the alarm about what? Did +Fellay not know about the risks in the discussions? He mentioned this several times since 2002.

      2. Did the Vatican really pull the wool over the eye of +Fellay? There does not appear to be any indication of this. In the current state, he simply told them that he could not sign the modified Doctrinal Declaration.

      3. +Fellay repeatedly stated that he would not compromise. In addition, you have omitted to mention the prelates within the Vatican who have stated that wholesale acceptance of V2 is not required. Funny that you missed that fact.

      4. The evidence is clear, but it does not reflect what you think it does. A trap is sprung after the prey is within it. What has occurred is simply a vindication of +Fellay (and ++Lefebvre’s) methods in dealing with Rome. You proceed step by step until you have enough information to make a prudential decision.

      My personal thoughts:
      With respect to +Williamson and the priests who were making emotional appeals that were posted in YT: They contain standard a tried and true marketing technique called FUD. This stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

      Ultimately, a fascination with conspiracy theories leads to a mistrust of authority and a certain amount of paranoia. All the kerfuffle over these discussions have been fueled by these two elements. I personally liked Fr. Couture’s call for calm and the use of St. Ignatius’ rules for the discernment of spirits.

      Am I hoping for a regularization of the SSPX?
      Yes, I do because I am convinced it will aid in my discussions with conservative Catholics in order to work for the renewal of the Church.

      Do I want a regularization with compromise?
      No, I do not because that won’t serve for the good of the Church. Facts have demonstrated this already.

      Did +Fellay compromise and betray the SSPX?
      No, he did not.

      • Columba on said:

        Ultimately, a fascination with conspiracy theories leads to a mistrust of authority and a certain amount of paranoia.

        So you deny the prevalence of conspiracy–after all that has transpired? That exposes the source your naivety.

        • tradical on said:

          Thanks for accusing me of naivete.

          It means that at least I have a broader perspective.

          Prove a conspiracy and then I’ll ‘know’ it is a fact and not need to believe in it.

          More to the point: What has transpired that requires me to ‘believe’ in the ‘prevalence of conspiracy’.

          Be specific there are more ‘conspiracy theories’ than there are theorists.

          Oh, I almost forgot: please don’t bring up 911, Oklahoma, aliens, geo-centrism or Elvis.

          • Columba on said:

            Pascendi warns that

            the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.

            3. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality.

            …or perhaps St. Pius X was one of those kwazy conspiracy theorists.

            • tradical on said:

              Hi Columba,

              “A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group..” Wikipedia

              With respect to the Modernists and even the Neo-Modernists you are a little behind the times. Those conspiracies were exposed a little while ago. We are now living with the results of their plans.

              In other words the mod/liberals current entrenched throughout the Church hardly make their intentions a secret therefore I would be hardpressed to agree that it remains a conspiracy.

              This hardly proves that there is a ‘prevalence of conspiracy’ TODAY.

              • Columba on said:

                You must not have fully read the quote from Pascendi. St. Pius X says that the Modernists are working to subvert the Church on behalf of her enemies. Modernists have never openly confessed to such treason and most professed Catholics do not know that this happened or believe that it is still happening.

                You admit that this conspiracy could have taken place in the bad old days but think it must have ended before our present enlightened age? When did the conspiracy end and who defeated it? Or do you think that Church enemies seized power through Modernist proxies as described by St. Pius but then later gave it up voluntarily?

                Successfully conspiracies are, by definition, not widely known to exist by their intended targets, i.e. covert. Unless you can prove that conspiracy has ended, the only logical conclusion is that it is ongoing. Most SSPX bishops would agree with that conclusion and it meets the definition for conspiracy you provided.

                • tradical on said:

                  Columba,

                  You’re off topic.

                  You wrote: ‘prevalence of conspiracy’. Prevalence means widespread / many.

                  So one conspiracy does not a ‘prevalence’ make.

                  Modernism: Been there done that, they’ve sprung their trap. It is only a conspiracy if you believe that the modernists and neo modernists are waiting for the Third (or Fourth) Vatican Council to spring their trap.

                  By the way: You shouldn’t quote movie dialogue for definitions (third paragraph first sentence) its bad form.

                  • Columba on said:

                    Then you are conceding the ongoing existence of that particular conspiracy described in Pascendi?

                    • tradical on said:

                      Focus Columba:

                      1. ‘prevalence of conspiracy’. Prevalence means widespread / many.
                      2. one conspiracy does not a ‘prevalence’ make.

                      You need to find a number of active conspiracies.

                      As noted modernism no longer qualifies as a conspiracy.

      • Hello tradical,
        I don’t think you demonstrated that I had my facts wrong; what you did was introduce other facts besides the ones that I mentioned and these in order to demonstrate that my facts were incomplete and therefore I had drawn (according to you) the wrong opinion.
        1. +Williamson sounded the alarm on the danger of going to Rome and negotiating with these people. We are not dealing with honest people, they will attempt to subvert the SSPX. Etc. etc. The events of the last few years demonstrate that his warnings were correct.
        2.On the contrary; “The Wool” refers to three facts: A. +Fellay was led to believe that Rome would accept the SSPX as “they were” B. The SSPX did not have to accept Vatican II. C. The protocol which +Fellay was to sign in Rome on his last visit was to be the same one that he had returned signed earlier in the month.
        3. +Fellay did compromise, by changing his position on the following: A. Up to Sept. Of last year, he stated that there would be no practical accord with Rome, before there was a doctrinal accord. B. He defended the Conciliar document on Religious Liberty, by stating that it only taught “a limited religious freedom” (which was not the position of the SSPX or of +Lefebvre.). C. He was ready to accept the Vatican protocol without the other 3 bishops signing on, and which Rome stated they would have to treat each of the same bishops as separate cases. This means that +Fellay was willing to enter an accord with Rome with SSPX sans 3 of the 4 bishops. This is not the same as Rome accepting the SSPX as they were.
        As for the other prelates that stated that the SSPX did not have to accept Vatican II. Yes I admit omitting this fact. But given what has happened; this turned out to be false. The SSPX cannot avoid accepting Vatican II; especially the doctrines on Religious Liberty; Ecumenism; and the new teachings on the Jews.
        4. The evidence points to the contrary; that Rome intends to bring the SSPX into accepting the Second Vatican Council and making it another Ecclesia Dei group.
        My reflections on your personal thoughts.
        1. ”Fear Uncertainty and Doubt” were introduced into the Church at Vatican II; the priest that spoke up on Y.T. Do not want the SSPX to be sucked into the “Conciliar Church”; where this “Fear Uncertainty and Doubt” are institutionalized.
        2. There is not “conspiracy theory” involved in denouncing the suicide of trusting the current Roman authorities to play cleanly or abide by any agreement that may be signed.
        3. Conservative Catholics already have the Ecclessia Dei groups to “convert to”; they are not interested; why would they be any more interested in converting to the SSPX? Second; the “renewal of the Church is not going to come about by the SSPX getting sucked into the Conciliar system; it will come when Rome renounces the errors of Vatican II and the Pope consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
        4. You do not want compromise; but the signing of an agreement will lead to it like it or not.
        5. He is playing a dangerous game in which he is trusting Rome to be honest and abide by any agreeement that he signs. They have demonstrated time and again in their dealings with the other “rallied” groups (most recently the IBF) that they are not honest people.

        • tradical on said:

          “… I don’t think you demonstrated that I had my facts wrong …”
          Yep sorry for that.

          reflections:
          1. FUD: You misunderstood the utility of the technique. The YT talks contained only part of the whole story and distorted other facts.

          With respect to the Church today, based on my interactions with conservative Catholics it is not fud but heresy, ignorance and prejudice against the culture of the Church that existed prior to V2.

          3. You misunderstand my intention. With the SSPX in an irregular canonical situation, it appears for them (con Caths) to accept that Mass and cultural assumptions that I am presenting are correct.

          Re your second opinion: that is an assumption on your part. There are a number of ways in which an organizations culture can be changed. You under estimate the strength of the Traditional Catholic Culture. Strong cultures always overcome weak cultures. Based on my experience in my geographic location the Modernist Culture is burning out and is definitely weakening.

          4. That is assertion that is not proven by the facts. +Fellay did not sign because someone altered the conditions.

          2&5. The principle involved remains the same. You proceed with prudence and assess the culture of the Church. Is there sufficient realization of the crisis to evoke a change? If yes we proceed, if no we wait.

          You can’t refuse to enter into a discussion with Rome based on paranoia that they are going to trap you. You go in with your eyes open and proceed with caution and prudence. For this +Fellay has been vilified.

          Events have overtaken this discussion:
          rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/fellay-we-are-at-point-of-departure.html

          • tradical stated, “You can’t refuse to enter into a discussion with Rome based on paranoia that they are going to trap you. You go in with your eyes open and proceed with caution and prudence. For this +Fellay has been vilified.”

            It’s a bit more than paranoia, tradical:

            Bishop Gallaretta:, “The warning of RP Ferrer, secretary of the Cardo Cafiizares: “Do not agree with Rome, she can not keep it promise you.” We received other warnings similar to Rome.”

            Bishop Gallaretta, “There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours. On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms.”

            “It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings. Otherwise, one would think that Msgr. Riffan and Father Aulagnier were right. “

            • tradical on said:

              Irish,
              First, that statement is almost 9 months old, based on the original preamble which has been modified, and actually set aside in an attempt to overcome an impasse.

              Second, paranoia prevents action.

              If +Fellay didn’t engage in the discussions when Rome requested, then we would not have objective direct knowledge of the state of the culture in Rome with respects to the culture embodied in the SSPX.

              If not for +Fellay’s action, we would only have words of warning as an excuse.

              Actions speak far more than words.

              We now know the situation with clarity.

              At the point of the ‘June’ meeting the organizational culture of the Vatican hierarchy was not sufficiently in crisis to accept the organizational culture of the SSPX.

              This does not preclude further alteration as evidence by ++Di Noia’s new assignment.

              Burying your talent in the ground because of fear of losing it is not commendable.

              • Signing the preamble has been set aside? That’s news to me. So what’s the hold-up?

                “We now know the situation with clarity”? I don’t think so!

                • tradical on said:

                  +Fellay set the preamble aside and provided the Doctrinal Declaration. The reason for doing so was they had reached an impasse.

                  Clarity:
                  Certainly, the discussions have reached a point of decision. The decision has been made +Fellay has being explicit, he can’t sign the Doctrinal Declaration because the curia (assumption on my part) has reintroduced elements of the Sept 2011 preamble into the Doctrinal Declaration.

                  What is unclear about that?

                  • If you have to make an “assumption”, it’s not clear. Right?

                    • tradical on said:

                      wrong.

                      What is clear is that +Fellay reached the point where it was sufficiently clear that he could not sign the amended Doc. Declaration.

                      The person(s) responsible for this amendment is not relevant to obtaining the necessary information to make a decision.

              • tradical said, “If not for +Fellay’s action, we would only have words of warning as an excuse.”

                In your above statement, replace “Fellay’s” with “Rifan’s” and tell me what the result has been in South America or the Church in whole.

                I’m going to research Bishop Rifan’s deal and see whether he had to sign a similar preamble.

                • tradical on said:

                  “… south america …”

                  This does not contradict the principle put forth.

                  The actions in the case of +Rifan, the Institute of Christ the King (last month) are causes for prudence in dealing with Rome, but cannot be used as an excuse to refuse to enter into discussions with them. This is particularly true when the Pope has fulfilled (in varying degrees) the pre-requisites for reaching this point.

                  • Bishop Rifan says:

                    Q. Do you think there are sufficient grounds for the Pope to grant the second precondition — lifting the decrees of excommunications (or declaring them null and void) against the bishops of the SSPX and Archbishop Castro de Mayer?

                    A. The Pope can lift the decree of excommunication, as a sign of benevolence, in order to facilitate the conversations with the SSPX. That was my suggestion [to the Pope] during the conversations.

                    Here, Bishop Rifan uses the same exact phrase used by Cardinal Ricard: the Pope will make a “gesture of good-will (geste de bienveillance),” says Ricard; lifting the excommunications will be a “sign of benevolence,” says Rifan.

                    Cardinal Ricard’s second statement, that after this “gesture” is made, “it will remain to be seen whether the Fraternity will take the next step,” corresponds to what Bishop Rifan says next:

                    After this lifting of the decree of excommunications, they will be in the similar condition of the Greek Orthodox, from whom the Pope [Paul VI in 1964] lifted the decree of excommunication too. Afterwards, they will need the canonical regularization and the correction of doctrinal mistakes.

                    What are the doctrinal mistakes that the SSPX hold, tradical?

                  • tradical on said:

                    Irish,

                    You lost me. Are you responding to something I wrote or is this a ‘new’ statement?

              • I would also like to put some comments in here:
                The fact that the statement is 9 mo. Old is not at all to the point.
                The General Chapter (including +Fellay) concluded that the doctrinal discussions only demonstrated that there was an unbridgeable gulf separting the SSPX and the Catholic faith from Rome and the Conciliar religion. They issued a statement specifically mentioning the fact that there could not be a ‘practical’ accord without arriving first at a ‘doctrinal’ one.
                Second.+ De Galarreta is stating that “Rome cannot be trusted”; recent events including the “bait and switch” that the Pope and the CDF pulled on +Fellay more than justify the accuracy of +De Galarreta’s warning.

                • tradical on said:

                  9mo old:
                  It is to the point because:
                  Subsequently there were modifications to the document that indicated some change in Rome.

                  It was then necessary to see how genuine these was.

                  We now know the answer.

                  Although maybe another answer is forthcoming.

          • On the the apology; no problem. The retoric gets away from me also at times.
            1. “F.U.D.”: The sermons were sounding an alarm and as such the priests did the right thing. Did some of the retoric go over board? Was some of it innacurate? It could be; but it wasn’t the priests that created the state of alarm; it was +Fellay and his actions, including his response to the three bishops letter; his defense of D.H. His “hoping” that Vatican II was part of the great tradition of the Church. His seeking a practical accord with an unconverted Rome. My alarm bells went off before the priests sermons; I was just glad that there were priests brave enough to stand up and give the warning.
            On F.U.D with the Conservatives: True; I stand corrected.
            On misunderstanding your intentions, re, Conservatives: Sorry.
            On your reply to the second part of my #3; (IIae IIIae?); the history of the Church during and after Vatican II, demonstrates that error has triumphed almost totally over the Catholic faith; the crisis was prophesied at Fatima and Our Lady gave us the solution.
            I agree that we have to do all we can to bring about the conversion of the rest of men; but I can also see that there isn’t a massive movement to return to the true faith.
            4. Proven by the fact that every other trad group that has signed has been subverted into accepting Vatican II.
            B. Even if Rome were to offer +Fellay the “perfect deal”; once he accepts the authority of the Pope and the curia in practice (and not just in theory) He subjects himself to the possibility of the “deal” being changed; the Pope will allege that it is “for the good of the Church” and +Fellay would be trapped; his neck will already be firmly in the noose.
            2 & 5: Prudence dictates not to deal with dishonest people; and our Faith demands that we don’t make deals with enemies of the Catholic Faith. How many ‘backstabings’ does there have to be, to convince you of the above.
            To refuse to enter into a discussion with Rome is not based on “paranoia” ei. delusions of persecution; Its based on the fact that Rome has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. The cases already cited are sufficient.
            To have one’s eyes open means that one does not go in at all: “Only fools dare go where Angels fear to tread.”
            Finally, some of the criticisms of +Fellay have been over the top; but basically he is playing with the salvation of the people who are trusting him to preserve their faith intact. He has to be warned and prevented from destroying the work of +Lefebvre; any deal with unconverted Rome is a one way street to the liquidation of this work.
            Events are still up in the air; not all of the cards have settled to the ground yet.

            • BTW: Hello Irish; its been a while.

              • Good to see you again, Michael.

                By the way, you said, “He( Bishop Fellay} subjects himself to the possibility of the “deal” being changed; the Pope will allege that it is “for the good of the Church” and +Fellay would be trapped; his neck will already be firmly in the noose.”

                Bishop Fellay could not only be trapped; he could be replaced, as we’ve seen before.

            • tradical on said:

              Hi Michael,

              As far as I see the principle still stands:

              If the Pope asks you to do something that does not compromise the Faith. You have no choice to not obey is sinful.

              If the Pope asks you to come and talk doctrine, again you don’t have a choice. Talking doctrine does not endanger the Faith.

              Once you are asked to compromise the faith in actuality: Then you have to decline.

              This is not the pre-crime division. Just because you suspect someone is going to rob you, until he does the action you can’t do anything because he hasn’t actually done the action.

              • The principle is that we must obey the Pope in all that is licit. But if the Pope has demonstrated for the last 50 years that he is one of the main partisans of the errors that are destroying the faith and the Church; what assurances do we have that his semingly innocuous orders do not have a harmful intention behind it?
                You have a duty to refuse to engage in discussions if 1) The interlocutor is not in good faith 2) There is a danger to your own faith. In the present case re. SSPX/Rome; both 1 and 2 are true. The proofs are there if you choose to see them.
                +Fellay did the right thing in refusing to sign the protocol.
                Not pre-crime at all; we are dealing with carreer criminals with public records of their deeds.

                • tradical on said:

                  Michael,

                  innocuous orders: That is not up to the person who is receiving the order. If the order meets the above criteria you have no choice.

                  refuse to engage:
                  1. They have met the requirements set out by the SSPX for the engagement in discussions.
                  2. Entering into discussions does not endanger your faith. Agree with heretical notions does.

                  The ‘proofs’ noted don’t controvert the principle being put forward.

                  Not pre-crime: The principle still applies. He isn’t guilty of an action (objectively) until he has performed the action. This of course does allow for prudence in interactions.

                  • tradical states:

                    1. They have met the requirements set out by the SSPX for the engagement in discussions.

                    2. Entering into discussions does not endanger your faith. Agree with heretical notions does.

                    The doctrinal discussions began long ago and ended over a year ago. Both sides admit the “discussions” did not come to an agreement. Hard deadlines and ultimatums have since been set by Rome, only to be extended at the Pope’s desire. There is nothing more to discuss with Ecclesia Dei than capitulation, it appears to me.

                    • tradical on said:

                      It takes at around 7 years to change the organizational culture of a business. What the SSPX is attempting to do is to change the culture of the Church.

                      This is going to take time.

                      Probably a lot of time.

                    • You have it backwards, tradical. It took no time for VC II to suppress the TLM (under what we now know were false pretenses).

                    • tradical on said:

                      “… You have it backwards …”

                      Irish,
                      What I stated is based on research within organizations.

                      If the ‘transition’ from the TLM to the NO was executed with speed it occurred because the dominant culture enabled it in some fashion. The word ‘obedience’ comes to mind as well as some words of +Lazo.

                      The culture now within the Church has deviated so far that it will make this a long transition.

                      Ultimately, it will only really gain momentum within the culture of the Church when the Pope makes clear signals that this is the desired culture.

                      Up to now the signals are mixed as best, discouraging at worst.

                    • tradical said, “If the ‘transition’ from the TLM to the NO was executed with speed it occurred because the dominant culture enabled it in some fashion. The word ‘obedience’ comes to mind as well as some words of +Lazo.”

                      False obedience comes to mind as far as those who suppressed the TLM in the “spirit” of VC II.

                    • tradical on said:

                      In the case of the majority of Bishops throughout the Catholic Church at that time I I think the word would be ‘blind obedience’ in this case although it is a bit of a stretch.

                      +Lazo recounted that a paper (fax?) arrived stating that the TLM was to be suppressed and the NO implemented.

                      His answer at the time was: Rome has spoken …etc

                      My understanding is that this would be consistent with the culture at the time.

                    • What is it with your term, “culture at that time”? Is that some type of excuse?

                    • tradical on said:

                      “…your term, “culture at that time”? Is that some type of excuse? …”

                      Do you really want to know?

                      No, it is not an excuse but provides some understanding as to how these actions could have been executed with such little / ineffective resistance.

                      Pre-V2 the priestly formation as well as the cultural milieu in which the priests, bishops et al were formed had a higher degree of respect for authority and obedience.

                      This facilitated the modernist coup.

                • Michael,

                  You refer to the Holy Father as a “career criminal”. Perhaps you would be so good as to clarify whether you are the same “Michael Wilson” who posts elsewhere online? That Michael Wilson is a sedevacantist who regards Pope Benedict XVI as a heretic and usurper. Are you? Do you?

                  • Gordon,
                    it was tradical that introduced the “crime” metaphor; I was continuing with it. In other words he wanted to say that if “nothing has happened yet, we shouldn’t be suspicious of the motives of the Pope; I replied that since the Pope has “done- in” other groups that have trusted in him; there is all the reason in the world to be suspcious ei. He has a long record of doing just the very thing. Therefore the “crime” “career criminal” play on words.

                    Yes, I and the “0ther” Michael Wilson am one and the same; and yes I do believe that probably Benedict XVI and his immediate precesesors will one day be declared by the Church to be either not Popes or condemned as unfaithful to their duties. Therefore, I am a sed.

                    • tradical on said:

                      `probably Benedict XVI and his immediate … Therefore, I am a sed….`

                      Who was the last Pope in your thinking

                      How does this fit in with “ in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph … the Pope and Bishops will consecrate …`

                      I`m curious, where do you attend mass …

                • tradical on said:

                  I should have asked:

                  1. What is dangerous to the faith in holding the discussions?

                  2. Under what conditions would you proceed with discussions?

                  • Long skirts,
                    In the case of St. Paul, the Christians assured themselves that St. Paul had indeed converted, before listening to him. And yes I do believe that hearts and souls can be changed by God. But Benedict XVI has given no indication of having changed his ways. The “bait and switch” tactic that he used on +Fellay and the recent curial appointments (which tradical agrees are worisome) demonstrante that he has not converted.
                    If +Fellay signs it will be with him as it has been with others that have signed before him. To sign is to give up the fight against modernist Rome and her errors; this has been the effect on all of the other ‘rallied’ groups.

                    • tradical on said:

                      `… To sign is to give up the fight against modernist Rome …“

                      Past actions may provide insight to what could happen, but they do not provide absolute guidance to what will happen.

                      If the Pope accepts the SSPX without any compromises of faith, then +Fellay has no choice.

                      To refuse would have a number of implications amongst which:
                      a. refusal of submission to the Holy Pontiff ergo schism
                      b. destruction of the arguments for supplied jurisdiction.

                      The other `failures` (so to speak) shed light on the issues to resolve prior to settling on a canonical regularization and provide substance to arguments for protection from the hierarchy.

                      If the Pope were to `swallow`the bitter SSPX pill under the conditions noted above it would be an indication of an actual change in the culture of the Church.

                      It will also evoke an immune response from the modernist hierarchy.

                  • Tradical:
                    1. The danger is to loose one’s own faith by the arguments of your heretical adversary.
                    2. I wouldn’t proceed with them at all. Why? Because the SSPX representatives that took part in the discussions came away with the conclusion that further discussions were useless; why? Because there is no common ground on which to base an agreement. And Why is that? Because of the change in format introduced into the discussions by the Roman representatives. The original format was supposed to be a comparison being made between the teachings of the Council and those of the pre-Conciliar magisterium in order to ascertain their concordance or divergence; but when the discussions began, the Roman representatives instead affirmed that the teachings of Vatican II were in conformity with the past magisterium, based on the documents emitted after the council. Are you starting to notice a pattern?

                    • tradical on said:

                      Michael,

                      “… danger to lose one’s own faith …”
                      Based on this principle you wouldn’t engage in discussions and try to convert protestant heretics.

                      If we were to apply this principle to the Church at large it would result in the death of all apostolic work to save souls.

                      “… wouldn’t proceed with them …”
                      Yes the mantra “accept the council” continues to echo throughout the Vatican. No surprise in that aspect of cultural change.

                      However the above principle still holds.

                      By the way, you neglect to take into account the participants in these discussions in assessing the danger to lose one`s faith. I would refer to the instruction on ecumenism by the Holy Office under Pius XII.

                    • tradical said, “Based on this principle you wouldn’t engage in discussions and try to convert protestant heretics.”

                      But one doesn’t become a protestant to convert a protestant, does he? Conversion, by definition, is done from the outside.

                    • tradical said, “If the Pope accepts the SSPX without any compromises of faith, then +Fellay has no choice.”

                      But the Pope hasn’t done that! That’s the problem. He could have done that back in September.

                    • tradical on said:

                      “… But one doesn’t become a protestant to convert a protestant, does he? Conversion, by definition, is done from the outside…”

                      Irish,
                      Your line of reasoning is very confused on this one.

                      It does not follow that a regularization would make the SSPX ‘modernists’.

                  • Pius XII.
                    The conversion of Benedict XVI or one of his succesors cannot be ruled out. Although I doubt it for the present Pope.
                    “Once thou art converted confirm thy brethren”.
                    The SSPX

                    • Not all discussions are fruitless; the doctrinal discussions with the Vatican the last two years convinced the members of the SSPX group that further discussions were pointles, because of a lack of common principles; as +De Gallareta put it; the two parties were talking past each other.

                      Thanks for refering me to the instructions of the Holy Ofice under Pius XII; I have re-read it; it is full of warnings about the dangers attending to the taking place in the ecumenical discusssions; and of the norms to be followed to avoid those dangers.
                      One obvious example of the danger is how +Fellay is now stating that D.H. Does not teach an unlimited religious liberty but a restricted one; and this he himself stated was what he had learned from the discussions. Therefore contradicting the position of +Lefebvre and his own up until recently.

                    • Where did Abp Lefebvre claim that Dignitatis Humanae teaches an “unlimited” religious liberty? No-one who can read would claim that, since DH explicitly says that immunity from coercion applies “within due limits”.

                    • tradical on said:

                      Michael,

                      “… One obvious example of the danger is how +Fellay is now stating that D.H. Does not teach an unlimited religious liberty …”

                      Looking at that interview with such a narrow view does not serve you well. When I heard this I was also concerned, but I immediately realized that this was a sound bite from a much longer interview edited by a liberal.

                      Subsequent statements by +Fellay and the published portions of the interview transcript hold this out. +Fellay was discussion religious tolerance.

                      Therefore there is no contradiction.

                    • tradical on said:

                      Hi Michael,

                      Interesting.

                      Last Pope: Pius XII.

                      fit with “ … the Pope and Bishops will consecrate …`: conversion of Benedict XVI or one of his succesors cannot be ruled out.

                      I find it interesting that you believe that Benedict XVI is a legitimate Pope and yet consider yourself a sedevacantist.

                      This is a paradox.

                • Michael Wilson says:

                  “The principle is that we must obey the Pope in all that is licit. But if the Pope has demonstrated for the last 50 years that he is one of the main partisans of the errors that are destroying the faith and the Church;”

                  Then should no one have listened to St. Paul who had actually been a part in murdering the first Christians? Souls and hearts can be changed by God.

                  Michael Wilson also says:

                  ” what assurances do we have that his semingly innocuous orders do not have a harmful intention behind it?”

                  We have no assurance, only God knows, but if Bishop Fellay signs the “regularization” and then is asked to do or agree to something sinful we go back to what we have always done and watch and pray.

                  • Longs-Skirts says, “We have no assurance, only God knows, but if Bishop Fellay signs the “regularization” and then is asked to do or agree to something sinful we go back to what we have always done and watch and pray.”

                    To whom will you back to?

  6. Susana said:

    “The total disrespect, name calling, character assasination, rash judgement and other horrible things directed toward Bishop Fellay is inexusable. These people have learned nothing by practicing traditional Catholicism”

    OF
    SEDUCERS
    AND
    TRAD…ucers

    Time delayed…
    But Holy hope!
    The sixty’s seducers
    Are known by the +Pope.

    Stiffed-necked men
    Won’t serve, obey –
    Sure of their slander
    Defame +Fellay.

    The two extremes –
    They both reduce
    Their holy inheritance
    To less than a deuce…

    But what their inheritance?
    The True Faith they deduce –
    For their Shepherd-less rites!
    Both…Tradition traduce.

  7. If the Pope accepts the SSPX without any compromises of faith, then +Fellay has no choice.

    That however doesn’t seem to be the case. Apparently there were compromises.

    Lowlife Romans made sure there were sufficient poison pills so as not to upset certain “friends” whispering in their ears. It’s probably for the better. I’m thinking that people like LOTI, Jake, Wilson etc. were right all along.

    They don’t want to leave any chance of Vatican II being deconstructed, hence we may have to wait until that absolutely glorious day when the current leadership is all dead and gone to begin the process of grinding it into the dirt where it belongs.

    It might be their baby, but it’s not anyone else’s.

    • On the contrary, I believe what has been demonstrated is that those that have been flinging filth at Bishop Fellay for ages were absolutely in the wrong.

      There have been two sides doing everything they could to harm this situation:
      – The Roman modernists
      – Those among the trads bent upon attacking Bishop Fellay and the normalization of the Society

      We have now arrived at the point where there is incontestable proof that Bishop Fellay has been faithful to his duties.

      And we have testimony as to the treachery of the modernists.

      So we have a very clear picture, with evidence, of who all the players are on the table.

      But the game is far from over.

      We need to pray harder.

    • tradical on said:

      “… Apparently there were compromises…”
      Fortunately, +Fellay had the strength of will to say “sorry, no thankyou, maybe some other time”.

  8. On the contrary, I believe what has been demonstrated is that those that have been flinging filth at Bishop Fellay for ages were absolutely in the wrong.

    Yes, but there were those who *weren’t* dogging Bishop Fellay around who smelled a rat that some of us didn’t.

    And yes, Bishop Fellay’s leadership and wisdom in all of this has been beyond stellar. I know that many of us will have a long memory regarding the trolls, malcontents and harpies who trashed him the way they did. They’ll have a well deserved spot at the top of many s***lists for a long time to come.

    That’s to include certain clergy within the Soceity. Almost anything is forgivable, but some things are inexcusable.

    • Serv said: . . . Almost anything is forgivable . . .

      Absolutely. And it is to be hoped for.

      I believe fear drove many of those with dirty hands on the trad side — the motivation was very understandable. And hopefully they will do what is right now as far as publicly correcting any public problems they made.

      As far as the modernist side, I personally didn’t see any sign anywhere of trads that were not expecting that the modernists, as always, would be doing everything in their power to do harm. I suppose there may have been some, but trads are generally so used to being kicked that they are expecting it. Where the difference is is in how one prepares for and responds to the kick.

      Anyways, personally, I’ve been praying and fasting that God resolve the difficulties with the Society in a manner pleasing to Him for years now — well before the talks.

      I think if anything we need to do more praying and sacrificing now.

    • Columba on said:

      Bishop Fellay’s leadership and wisdom in all of this has been beyond stellar.

      Fr. Matthew Clifton, SSPX: “Abandoning the security and prudence of the position adopted by the Society at the last meeting of the General Chapter (2006), namely of refusing any practical agreement with the Roman authorities without there being any doctrinal resolution of the errors of the Second Vatican Council, has proved to be a disaster.”

      • tradical on said:

        Columba,

        Frankly, I do not agree.

        It would have been a disaster if +Fellay had signed a compromising document.

        On the positive side there is much that has been learned. More importantly fault-lines within the SSPX are clearer and they can now be bridged.

        There is work to be done but it is not a disaster by any stretch of a Catholic’s imagination.

        • The virulent anti-Catholics amongst the SSPX have been exposed, and they need to be purged.

          Reading the Ignis Ardens blog, for example, is a lot like reading Alexander Hislop’s book, The Two Babylons.

        • Columba on said:

          It would have been a disaster if +Fellay had signed a compromising document.

          The document signed by Bishop Fellay remains secret. How do you know it was not compromising?

          • tradical on said:

            Columba,

            Where have you been lately? The document has not been signed, go a listen to +Fellay’s sermon.

            If you can’t understand french, then find a translation – there are a few around.

            • Columba on said:

              Bishop Fellay amended the original preamble. The Vatican rejected that amendment, so +Fellay re-amended the preamble and signed it but did not release a copy to the public so we do not know what he signed. Of course, the pope later rejected even that second amendment. Frightenly, Archbishop DiNoia has said the ball is still in play.

              SSPX priests and bishops have pointed out that the Vatican always breaks its promises to traditional groups after gaining control so any safeguards supposedly included in the deal cannot protect us.

              The SSPX is like a frog negotiating with a scorpion. Vatican Modernists willfully destroy themselves. How can we save them if they refuse to convert?

              • tradical on said:

                A. Either you believe +Fellay or you don’t. I believe him when he says there is not agreement.

                B. This still does not let you off the hook for obedience in the afore mentioned principle. No way around it.

                C. You need to stop treating the Church like it is either black or white. It is speckled. In my discussions with Catholics (non-trad …) I have met a number of them that are just prejudiced or ignorant. Some others hold heretical ideals but in a naive way. Discussion, discussion and more discussion is needed with the goal of making them understand the faith. Note I didn’t say dialogue.

  9. GordonG says:
    June 30, 2012 at 1:31 PM Where did Abp Lefebvre claim that Dignitatis Humanae teaches an “unlimited” religious liberty? No-one who can read would claim that, since DH explicitly says that immunity from coercion applies “within due limits”.

    In many of his writtings and speeches; But you can read with profit his Book: They Have Uncrowned Him; especially pages 189-212; and he explicitly refutes the “within due limits” argument as merely “dust in the eyes” (204-205); to hide from view, the radical contradiction between the teaching of D.H. and that of the pre-conciliar magisterium.

  10. Michael W. States:
    “… One obvious example of the danger is how +Fellay is now stating that D.H. Does not teach an unlimited religious liberty …”
    Tradical replies:

    Looking at that interview with such a narrow view does not serve you well. When I heard this I was also concerned, but I immediately realized that this was a sound bite from a much longer interview edited by a liberal.
    I answer: Here is exact quote from the interview:
    [+Fellay:
    Religious Liberty
    The Relgious liberty is used in so many ways and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council said about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which is in fact a very, very limited one. Very limited. It would mean our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each religion, is false. [end of quote].

    He states that: 1. We don’t know what the council said about Religious Liberty (I presume this includes +Lefebvre and himself up until recently)
    2, That the council taught a “very limited” religious liberty (ei. really religious tolerance).
    3. That it did not teach a right to error or to choose one’s own religion.
    That amounts to a direct contradiction of the position of +Lefebvre and the SSPX up to now.
    Tradical states:

    Subsequent statements by +Fellay and the published portions of the interview transcript hold this out. +Fellay was discussion religious tolerance.
    Michael replies:
    I would like to see the subsequent commentary; but I don’t know what he could have said either before or after to save those statements.

    tradical comments:
    Therefore there is no contradiction.
    Michael replies:
    As of right now there certainly is.

    • tradical on said:

      Of course you discount all the post-interview explanations provided by +Fellay and Fr. Rostand. Why?

      I do believe that at a minimum you have a perceptual error on #3.

      ‘…they clearly said that to mean that … is false’
      So Rome has affirmed the traditional teaching and contradicted an interpretation that has been prevalent since the council.
      – Why is this bad? In fact this is an absolutely fantastic event in light of the errors being promoted by false ecumenism.

      You realize this undermines the ‘interpretation’ of Religious Liberty that has been the ‘rule of the day’ since the council?

      You misunderstood #2, but I can’t recall the entire reference. +Fellay went on to explain Religious Liberty in the context of Tolerance.

      So the ‘contradiction’ is only in your mind if you refuse to listen to what +Fellay said in other interviews afterwards.

      • I don’t at all “discount” or “refuse to listen” to what +Fellay has stated; I specifically asked you to provide the quote where he clarifies the above statement.
        As far as my “perceptual error” on #3; how so? +Lefebvre the Concervative Fathers of the Council and the SSPX have uniformly held that D.H. taught an unrestricted Religious Liberty.
        As far as your comment on my #2 ei. That +Fellay now states that the council only taught a “restricted religious liberty”:
        I am aware that since the Council the apologist of D.H. have uniformly stated that it did not teach an unrestricted liberty to embrace the religion of one’s choice, but only the right to not be “impeded” from the pracitce of the religion of one’s choice in public. Which +Lefebvre rightly claimed was a semantical sleigh of hand; for it amounts to the same thing.
        Secondly, that +Fellay went on to explain the document in the context of ”tolerance” is true and not true. He explained that the Catholic answer is “tolerance” but he also claimed the above quote without clarifying it (as far as I know). Therefore I would apreciate your finding the clarification.

        • tradical on said:

          “… clarifies the above statement. …”

          I’ll putter around later, I think it was on DICI and possibly in Fr. Rostand’s interview. DICI was textual so I’ll check it first.

          Cheers!

          • tradical on said:

            Source: www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/

            Bishop Fellay: My position is that of the Society and of Archbishop Lefebvre. As usual, in such a delicate matter, we must make distinctions, and a good part of these distinctions disappeared in the televised interview that had been reduced to less than six minutes. But the written report that CNS made of my remarks recovers what I said that was not included in the broadcast version: “Although [Bishop Fellay] stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict’s interpretation [of religious liberty] as essentially in continuity with the Church’s Tradition—a position which many in the Society have vocally disputed—Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.” In fact, I simply recalled that there is already a traditional solution to the problem posed by religious liberty, which is called tolerance. As for the Council, when they asked me the question, “Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?”, I answered, “I would like to hope that that is the case” (which a faulty French translation transformed into: “I hope so.”) This is quite along the lines of the distinctions made by Archbishop Lefebvre to read the Council in the light of Tradition: what agrees with Tradition, we accept; what is doubtful, we understand as Tradition has always taught it; what is opposed, we reject.

            I have not located the complete transcript at this time. Up to now I’ve only found portions.

            • Yes, I have read this; thank you for posting. But as you can see it doesn’t address the paragraph that I quoted.
              He states: “My position is that of the Society and of Archbishop Lefebvre..”
              But the part that I posted, is not “the position of the Society and of the Archbishop”.
              I thank you for any further clarifications you can find.

  11. tradical says:
    June 30, 2012 at 8:09 PM Hi Michael,

    Interesting.

    Last Pope: Pius XII.

    fit with “ … the Pope and Bishops will consecrate …`: conversion of Benedict XVI or one of his succesors cannot be ruled out.

    I find it interesting that you believe that Benedict XVI is a legitimate Pope and yet consider yourself a sedevacantist.

    This is a paradox.
    I don’t believe that he is a legitimate Pope; but I’ll admit that he could be. There are problems with the position; but I keep arriving at it, everytime I look at the issue.
    The question of what happens if a public heretic is elected Pope such as Cardinals Wojtila and Ratzinger is simple; the consequences are not.
    However, I’ve been posting here for about 5 years and I do not post about sed’ism, this is house rules; however you can consult bellarmine forums run by Mr. John Lane and traditionalmass; which is Fr. Cekada’s place if you want to delve deeper into the issue. Both would be more than happy to reply to your queries.

    • tradical on said:

      Michael,

      Public Heretic is not the same thing as a Formal Heretic. A public heretic can still be a material heretic. Even Pius IX was considered a liberal candidate for the papacy.

      The consequences of the principles put forth by the various sedevacantists lead to an abyss.

      You need to think the principles through to where they lead.

      Some have already reached their end point and elected ‘Pope’ thirteen or fourteen at last count. Others have become ‘home aloners’. Others think that loosely coupled independent priests are the best, with a couple of Bishops (Thuc or other) to provide ordinations and confirmation.

      None of this is consistent with was Vatican 1 said about the Papacy. Even when Linus (I might have it wrong) affirmed in a public forum a heretical notion, he did not lose the Papacy.

      Think hard about this and don’t just study. It is vital in this fight to nurture your spiritual life with spiritual reading/meditation.

      • Look its against forum rules to promote S.V. ism here;
        I thank you however for your comments and concerns.
        Just a little humorous note:
        If I accept your claim that Cardinals Wojtila and Ratzinger were not “public” heretics but “material” heretics; I would have to conclude that you are also a sed, because Ott, in his “Fundamentals of Catholic Theology” pg 311 tells us that Material Heretics are not to be counted as members of the Church; therefore….
        (Of course I know what you mean).

        • tradical on said:

          Ott goes further to explain that in the case of a Catholic who is in material heresy it is not sufficient to place him or her outside the Church as the error is considered passing or temporal until such time as it is made formal.

          The case of a protestant in material heresy is different.

          • Where does Ott state the above? I read until the end of pg. 311 and there is no further word about material heretics who are Catholics.
            Pg. 312 deals with The Necessity for Membership in the Church” .

  12. Servitium stated:
    They don’t want to leave any chance of Vatican II being deconstructed, hence we may have to wait until that absolutely glorious day when the current leadership is all dead and gone to begin the process of grinding it into the dirt where it belongs.
    I comment:
    Exactly; its a pipe dream to think that the “mods” are going to let a hostile group into the camp and give it free rein to destroy their baby. Every single trad group that has been allowed to return, has had to swallow the pill of Vatican II. As somebody stated quite succinctly on another forum: “Vatican II is the line on the sand.”
    btw. Hi Serv.

  13. Here is another article in which Fr. Lombardi declares that it is the Pope himself that demands that the SSPX accept the Council. So we cannot just ascribe the demand to the “evil entourage” who are trying to sabotage the Holy Father’s plans.
    Benedict XVI’s clear unmoving position was most recently confirmed by the Vatican’s official spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi to Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung on 27th June where he stated that Benedict XVI is “in favour of reunion, but only under clear theological conditions”.

    Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung
    www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland…g-11801199.html

    Benedict XVI’s conditions clearly are, and have always been, notwithstanding Menzingen’s propaganda to the contrary, that SSPX accept Vatican II and the post-Conciliar magisterium in its entirety.

    • tradical on said:

      Link doesn’t work.

      ‘clear theological conditions’ does not explicitly state ‘ accept the council’.

      BTW: Have you read John Lamont’s article: A Theologian’s Questions.

      It is well worth the time.

      • True, he doesn’t “explicitly” say it; but +Fellay was unwiling to sign a statement accepting the Council; which is what was presented to him in the last meeting at the CDF.
        The main point of the article was that it was the Pope himself and not one of his advisors that insisted on a clear statement from +Fellay accepting the Council.

  14. Columba on said:

    tradical says: A. Either you believe +Fellay or you don’t. I believe him when he says there is not agreement.

    After the Vatican demonstrated confusion and bad faith at the discussions, Bishop Fellay tried to make a private negotiations which shut out the General Chapter in direct opposition to its 2006 resolution.

    tradical says: B. This still does not let you off the hook for obedience in the afore mentioned principle. No way around it.

    There are no obligations to obedience that override obligations to the Faith.

    • tradical on said:

      … private negotiations
      Superior General – in the constitutions of SSPX – he can and does have the power to do so.

      …There are no obligations to obedience that override obligations to the Faith.

      keywords: No compromise of faith required – then you have to obey.

      • Columba on said:

        “Superior General – in the constitutions of SSPX – he can and does have the power to do so.”

        Please cite. The 2006 General Chapter resolved that he should never do this. Even if his actions were strictly legal, his position is damaged because he has lost the trust of his members and followers by his secrecy, heedlessness, and compromising.

        For the health and unity of the Society, he should step down and be replaced.

        • tradical on said:

          Cite: Review the interview with Fr. Rostand.

          Understand something very clearly: The Church is not a democracy, neither is the SSPX. ++Lefevbre structured it in this way because of his experience with the Holy Ghost Fathers.

          For the health and unity of the Society, +Fellay should be elected to another 12 year term. To change the Superior when the going gets tough would be suicide for the Society as it would subject the Superior to a popularity contest.

          When the Pope exercised his authority and lifted the excommunications in the face of major oppositions (a highly unpopular move) would you have him step down for such a decision?

          When Bl. Pope JPII reaffirmed the teaching of the Church concerning priestesses, again a very unpopular decision, would you have had him step down? It was very divisive and remains so to this day!

          The same can be said for declarations concerning a celibate clergy.

          Be careful what you wish for, a people often get the leaders that they deserve.

          By the way, who would you have in +Fellay’s place?

          • Columba on said:

            In which of the three interviews does Fr. Rostand say that SSPX constitutions authorize the Superior General to override the General Chapter?

            Any Church leader who compromises to Modernism should resign if there is a more qualified replacement available. I think that the next Superior General should be a priest, not a bishop, as the archbishop intended.

            • tradical on said:

              ‘… three interviews …’
              Try listening to them again.

              ‘… Any Church leader …’
              This belies a complete ignorance of how the Superior General is selected.

  15. For the health and unity of the Society, he should step down and be replaced.

    Any Church leader who compromises to Modernism should resign if there is a more qualified replacement available. I think

    Really?

    I think “for the health and unity” of AQ, you should “step down and be replaced.”

    Join one of the crank forums, they could use you. Don’t worry, we’ll find a “qualified replacement.”

Leave a Reply