Angelqueen.org

[servitium]

Rome Revises the Ultimatum

By John Grasmeier
Angelqueen.org
June 28, 2008

Although maintaining a site like AQ can be quite taxing at times, there are certain fringe benefits that make it all worthwhile. One of those benefits is that I often get first-dibs on info that I otherwise wouldn’t.

As everyone is now aware, the SSPX was handed an ultimatum which threatened to hold the excommunications hostage unless the fraternity, immediately and in writing, ceded to 5 perplexing and ambiguous demands. In the notably terse “Roman Ultimatum,” (yes, that’s being capitalized now, like a title), the original third demand read as follows:

3) The commitment to avoid the claim of a magisterium superior to the Holy Father and not to propose the fraternity as opposed to the Church.

It’s rather safe to assume that this clause is most impossible for the SSPX to submit to. The author(s) of the letter are demanding that the fraternity agree not to become (as if they might) poorly catechized heretics. Or worse, the author(s) are tacitly implying that the SSPX has in the past behaved as poorly catechized heretics.

Well hold the presses. Realizing their mistake, the letter writer(s) have listened to better angels and revised the demand. I can’t reveal the source, but I have, in my hot little hands, the new version of the Roman Ultimatum (yes, that’s being capitalized now, like a title). The other four demands remain unchanged, but the third has now been edited to read:

3) The commitment to avoid the claim that puppies and kittens should be soundly beaten on Wednesdays and Saturdays.

Wow. Although I came out against the original document, I fully support the new and improved version. This changes everything. Here’s why:

∙ Of course the SSPX will say that they never have made the claim that puppies and kittens should be soundly beaten on Wednesdays and Saturdays, but that’s not important. What’s important is that they agree to this whether they have or not. It will be for the greater good.

∙ Agreeing to avoid the claim that puppies and kittens should be soundly beaten on Wednesdays and Saturdays seems a small price to pay for “full communion”. It’s a no-brainer.

∙ I see no reason why the SSPX should have any problem avoiding the claim that puppies and kittens should be soundly beaten on Wednesdays and Saturdays. All that Rome is asking is that the fraternity show a little bit of Christian charity.

∙ This is obviously a gesture of good will by Rome toward the society. Rome is reaching out to them.

∙ This is a simple and easily complied with request. No good Catholic should have any problem agreeing to it.

∙ If the fraternity refuses this simple and easily complied with Catholic request, they will then prove their disobedience to the magisterium, which many have suspected has been the case all along.

∙ If the fraternity refuses this simple and easily complied with Catholic request, they will show a lack of humility.

∙ If the fraternity refuses this simple and easily complied with Catholic request, they will then be seen as advocating soundly beating puppies and kittens and Wednesdays and Saturdays.

∙ If the SSPX has not in the past and is not now claiming that puppies and kittens should be soundly beaten on Wednesdays and Saturdays, then they have nothing to worry about, as this demand will impose nothing new on them. Everything will continue on as normal.

∙ The demand is not necessarily accusing the fraternity has of claiming that puppies and kittens should be soundly beaten on Wednesdays and Saturdays. To directly accuse them of doing so when they haven’t would be a terrible insult and a sin. All the demand is stating is that, in the future, the SSPX should avoid the claim that puppies and kittens be soundly beaten on Wednesdays and Saturdays.

∙ Ambiguous documents that leave great room for interpretation come with certain advantages. The letter is not asking the SSPX to altogether avoid the claim that that puppies and kitten be soundly beaten. It only asks that the SSPX avoid the claim that puppies and kittens be soundly beaten on Wednesdays and Saturdays. If the SSPX should ever want to claim that puppies and kittens should be soundly beaten during the rest of the week, there’s absolutely nothing stopping them. The SSPX will still have all the freedom in the world to see that puppies and kittens are soundly beaten.

I know that I’ve always supported the SSPX in the past, but I have to get tough here. If they reject this very charitable, easily complied with, extremly Catholic and extraordinarily generous offer from Rome, I will have no choice but to log onto internet forums with an anonymous screen-name and tell everyone that I will no longer be attending SSPX Masses.

[And now...]

[VL]

Hmm. I don't think so. Since Wednesdays and Fridays were the traditional fasting days in the ancient Church, the SSPX should not accede to this subtle modernist subterfuge. No puppy and kitten beatings on Wednesdays and Saturdays? No! Hold out for Wednesdays and Fridays, I say.

[ceadmille]

I suppose next they will define beating puppies and kittens as servile labor so we can't do it on Sundays either!

[Clarebw]

For some of us, Wednesdays and Saturdays are the only possible days we have for beating puppies and kittens.

No way should the SSPX give in to this latest demand.
_________________
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens

[Jean]

[servitium]

[morningprayer]

too funny.
_________________
O God, My God: To thee do I watch at break of day...

[et cum spirit 220]

[morningprayer]

I can't stand it. too much. ROTF
_________________
O God, My God: To thee do I watch at break of day...

[PrayTheRosary]

Reductio ad absurdum!
Well done!

Threads like this are why et cum spirit 220 is the internet's MVP (most valued poster)and Serv is the MVM (most valued moderator) on the internet!

[MariaGratiaPlena]

Brilliant! Utterly brilliant!
_________________
Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!

[penitent99]

At least it doesn't prohibit soundly beating kittens and puppies on Wednesdays and Saturdays. All it asks is a commitment to avoid the claim that they should be soundly beaten on Wednesdays and Saturdays. I could live with that.

[Haurietis Aquas]

I SOOOO needed that. I've been taking the whole situation very badly. A priest I really respect is known to say, "Laugh or take hostages". Now, I can think of this and laugh.

Thanks, serv, and ECS220.
_________________
Is. 12:3 ... I Cor. 15:25

[scribe]

May I counsel moderation? I think it would be prudent if we waited for the original Latin version of the letter to be released before rushing to judgement. There are so many ambiguities in these modern Vatican texts.
_________________
+Mary has said: My Immaculate Heart will triumph.

[Petertherock]

Rome still hasn't made this clear enough. All they mention is puppies and kittens...can we still beat the dead horse? What about the sheep?

LOL! This is a great thread! I love it!
_________________
Darryl
Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus

[Vinnyf]

Once again, it would be typical of the compromising SSPX to accept this watered-down version which has the '62 Bugnini Masonic tampering written all over it. If you go back to Pius XII, you will find that in the papal bull "Mutatur Ursalum", koala bears were part of the beating restriction that also included kittens and puppies. Of course, to appease the Protestants from Sidney, koala bears were subtly removed from the restriction during the vicious koala rampage of '60 where literally hundreds of these critters overturned garbage pails and flung debris throughout Australia.

My advise would be for the SSPX to reject this in favor of the '58 version written by a Pope with real backbonitas.

Sorry to so strongly disagree with you Mr. Serv. If I must spend time in the corner for this, I accept the penalty.
_________________
http://www.traditionalcatholicradio.org

[Binx]

[servitium]

[dseline]

Serv wrote:
"What a fantastic reading of ambiguous text. Now I regret that they've removed the original 3rd demand, which read:

3) The commitment to avoid the claim of a magisterium superior to the Holy Father and not to propose the fraternity as opposed to the Church.

The SSPX could have assembled their own magisterium, as long as during the entire process they avoided claiming that they were doing so, nobody could have stopped them.

Binx wrote:
Right. And in truth, one need only commit to avoiding the claim.


Now I'm really upset that they've removed the original 3rd demand. The SSPX could have assembled their own magisterium, and even claimed they were doing so, as long as when asked later about the claim, they were sure to side-step the issue or refuse comment, thereby avoiding the claim they made."


Me:
Why do I feel like I'm caught in another Monty Python or Fawlty Towers sketch?

dseline

[pbax]

This is a trick I am almost sure, once we sign this document they have us. No one has asked the important question. When does a puppy and a kitten cease being a puppy and a kitten? If anyone has bothered taking there heads out of the religion books and watched David Antibough you would no that Vatican, being its own state has different laws on this than the rest of us. So we will be excommunicated anyway. Be careful Bishop Fellay.

[servitium]

[cantatedomino]

[gpmtrad]

" Ah HA! So it's ECS220! I THOUGHT so! And he's a barrister, at that! Can't do a bleedin' thing with these Papists, can we? Dreadful business, just dreadful! "
_________________
Salus animarum prima lex

[Isabel]

[Miles Christi Sum]

LOL !
_________________
Regina sine labe originali concepta, ora pro nobis!