Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:32 pm Post subject: Bp W Column, 9.5.09
Reprinted Exclusively for AQ. May be reprinted anywhere.
To subscribe to the email version, please send an email to dinoscopus@gmail.com
ELEISON COMMENTS CXIII (Sept.5,2009) :: DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS II. London, England.
What is the best outcome one may hope for, and the worst outcome one may fear, from the “doctrinal discussions” due in theory to begin this autumn in Rome between the mainstream Church and the Society of St. Pius X ? In practice the doctrinal gulf between Rome’s Conciliarism and the Society’s Catholicism is so fundamental (can or cannot 2 and 2 equal both 4 and 5 ?) that the “discussions” may not even begin. However, supposing that representatives of Rome and of the Society sit down together on two sides of one table, what is to be hoped for ?
Short of a stupendous miracle of God, there is, humanly speaking, no hope whatsoever of the Romans abandoning their devotion to Vatican II, that Council whose letter mixes the religions of God and man while its spirit is definitely the religion of man. For over 40 years the churchmen controlling Rome have been possessed by the conviction that God’s religion needs to be adapted to modern man, and nothing indicates that they are collectively about to abandon their deadly “combinazione”, on the contrary. See for instance the Pope’s latest Encyclical, “Charity in Truth”.
Therefore the most that can be hoped for on the side of the Romans is that to the Catholic Truth laid before them by the SSPX, a handful of them will react positively, most likely in private -- may they save their souls ! On the side of the SSPX, at best it will have witnessed to the Truth at the summit of the Church where it most matters, and even if on those heights it does little to no apparent good, still one may hope that an open account of the “discussions” presented afterwards to all Catholics of good will may reinforce their grasp of that doctrine by which Catholics are Catholics, and strengthen their Catholic common sense that, naturally and supernaturally, 2 and 2 make 4 and nothing else.
What we may fear on the contrary is that this primacy of doctrine may be blurred amidst the charms of the Roman autumn. “He who lies down with Roman dogs gets up with purple fleas”, says a proverb (invented by a friend). The temptation for the SSPX, especially if Rome waves both the stick of further condemnation as well as the carrot of recognition in front of the still scorned donkey’s nose, will be to glide over the doctrinal gulf and settle for some kind of “practical agreement” whereby the SSPX, already being very nice to Benedict XVI, would, for instance, be granted juridical status within the mainstream Church in exchange for an at least tacit understanding to stop attacking its Conciliarism.
However, any such understanding would be the beginning of the end, not of the defence of the Faith but of the SSPX’s defence of it, because as old-fashioned Communism knew, it should never fight Catholics over doctrine, where Catholics are strongest. Rather its strategy was to propose any kind of practical agreement whereby the Catholics would pass over the doctrine and just co-operate in action with the Communists. As Communism always knew, the rest would follow…
Kyrie eleison. _________________ Stephen Heiner
truerestoration.blogspot.com
However, supposing that representatives of Rome and of the Society sit down together on two sides of one table, what is to be hoped for?
My understanding is that these “discussions” will be rather an exchange of documents rather than a face to face confrontation over a table in some secret Vatican room. However, I would much prefer a face to face meeting with no holes barred so-to-speak. Let it all come out…no reason to pull any punches here; we’re talking about the Faith and the salvation of souls. Give it your best shot no matter who you are and let the Holy Spirit decide who wins out.
Quote:
On the side of the SSPX, at best it will have witnessed to the Truth at the summit of the Church where it most matters, and even if on those heights it does little to no apparent good, still one may hope that an open account of the “discussions” presented afterwards to all Catholics of good will may reinforce their grasp of that doctrine by which Catholics are Catholics, and strengthen their Catholic common sense that, naturally and supernaturally, 2 and 2 make 4 and nothing else.
Are we to presume that we will have an “open account” of the discussions presented afterwards to all or, is it possible that we will not be privy to the results? Is it even within the realm of possibility that there will be a “sell-out” by the SSPX after 20 years or more of struggle to even get to this point? This is more than just the SSPX and the Holy See involved here. We’re talking about the entire traditional movement in the Church and, in fact, the entire Mystical Body of Christ. My hope is that the SSPX will be the vanguard for the return to the Faith for all Catholics everywhere and my prayers are with the participants. I prefer to hope that the Holy Spirit will take charge of these “discussions” rather than take the approach that they are finished before they even begin. And, no disrespect to His Excellency is intended. _________________ Pre-Vatican II Catholic-16 yrs Catholic schooling.
Bishop Williamson has known Bp. Fellay ever since Bp. Fellay joined the Society. Have you? _________________ Stephen Heiner
truerestoration.blogspot.com
So what you're saying is that the people who know Bishop Fellay best do not trust him? Interesting.
I did not say that. I said that however Bp. Williamson feels about Bp. Fellay, it is not informed by how laypeople normally know Bp. Fellay, through sermons and conferences. He knows him by having served with him, met with him, been in council and General Chapter and the thousand other occasions over the last thirty years that would give him a better vantage point to judge than either you or me. _________________ Stephen Heiner
truerestoration.blogspot.com
Bishop Williamson might not have confidence in sunshine
Bishop Williamson might not have confidence in rain
But if I had to guess
ei-ther way
I would say
that he has con-fi-dence
in Bish-op Fel-lay!
Joined: 15 Feb 2006 Posts: 1758 Location: Louisiana
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:26 pm Post subject:
Bishop Williamson is merely repeating what Bishop Fellay has said regarding coming to a "practical arrangement" that simply sweeps aside theological disagreements as if they don't exist.
The SSPX is not just the four bishops. These discussions could be used by Rome to tempt individual members into compromising for the sake of regularization. A wholesale, top-down collapse of the Society is probably not the immediate goal of the Conciliarists, who have been playing a game of divide-and-conquer all along.
Bishop Williamson has known Bp. Fellay ever since Bp. Fellay joined the Society. Have you?
Your answer is not relevant either. What is relevant is that all four Bishop's need to be on the same playing field when they enter into these doctrinal discussions. H.E. Bishop Williamson portrays at times and in some of his blog's that discussions are useless. Where as the other Bishop's are more optimistic. Now is not the time for Williamson to sow discord among the Society. I for one am glad he is not part of the discussions, on the other hand I am saddened that the Society could use his expertise.
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 3282 Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject:
Sam wrote:
What is relevant is that all four Bishop's need to be on the same playing field when they enter into these doctrinal discussions. H.E. Bishop Williamson portrays at times and in some of his blog's that discussions are useless. Where as the other Bishop's are more optimistic. Now is not the time for Williamson to sow discord among the Society. I for one am glad he is not part of the discussions, on the other hand I am saddened that the Society could use his expertise.
The modernists in Rome have for years been trying to play Bp. Williamson, as the most outspoken of the four Society bishops, off against the other three, trying to isolate and marginalize him. For him to honestly speak his mind is no more "sowing discord" now than it was ten years ago. Furthermore, you oversimplify to the point of distortion when you say that HE portrays the upcoming discussions as useless. To acknowledge the real dangers associated with dealing with an unrepentant and stubbornly modernist Rome is merely to be realistic.
What is relevant is that all four Bishop's need to be on the same playing field when they enter into these doctrinal discussions. H.E. Bishop Williamson portrays at times and in some of his blog's that discussions are useless. Where as the other Bishop's are more optimistic. Now is not the time for Williamson to sow discord among the Society. I for one am glad he is not part of the discussions, on the other hand I am saddened that the Society could use his expertise.
The modernists in Rome have for years been trying to play Bp. Williamson, as the most outspoken of the four Society bishops, off against the other three, trying to isolate and marginalize him. For him to honestly speak his mind is no more "sowing discord" now than it was ten years ago. Furthermore, you oversimplify to the point of distortion when you say that HE portrays the upcoming discussions as useless. To acknowledge the real dangers associated with dealing with an unrepentant and stubbornly modernist Rome is merely to be realistic.
Joined: 08 Oct 2005 Posts: 794 Location: Syracuse, NY
Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject:
You guys certainly get your knickers in a twist easily.
Bishop Williamson says the Society will not compromise the faith for an opportunity at "recognition" .. the Vatican says the Society must accept the Council. Sounds like the stage is set for an unforeseen miracle. I would be more excited except that the Lord has already tipped His hand and told us how it will end.
I would look especially to the Superior General for information regarding any doctrinal discussions. Official statements on a matter so serious for so many seem to be the most reliable way to go.
I have learned much from Bishop Williamson's columns over the years, I just don't really know what purpose this particular one serves.
Sounds like the stage is set for an unforeseen miracle.
II Maccabees 12-36 wrote:
Now when Judas found that Nicanor was coming, he imparted to the Jews that were with him, that the enemy was at hand. 13 And some of them being afraid, and distrusting the justice of God, fled away: 14 Others sold all that they had left, and withal besought the Lord, that he would deliver them from the wicked Nicanor, who had sold them before he came near them: 15 And if not for their sakes, yet for the covenant that he had made with their fathers, and for the sake of his holy and glorious name that was invoked upon them.
16 But Machabeus calling together seven thousand that were with him, exhorted them not to be reconciled to the enemies, nor to fear the multitude of the enemies who came wrongfully against them, but to fight manfully: 17 Setting before their eyes the injury they had unjustly done the holy place, and also the injury they had done to the city, which had been shamefully abused, besides their destroying the ordinances of the fathers. 18 For, said he, they trust in their weapons, and in their boldness: but we trust in the Almighty Lord, who at a beck can utterly destroy both them that come against us, and the whole world. 19 Moreover he put them in mind also of the helps their fathers had received from God: and how under Sennacherib a hundred and eighty-five thousand had been destroyed. 20 And of the battle that they had fought against the Galatians in Babylonia, how they, being in all but six thousand, when it came to the point, and the Macedonians their companions were a stand, slew a hundred and twenty thousand, because of the help they had from heaven, and for this they received many favours.
21 With these words they were greatly encouraged, and disposed even to die for the laws and their country. 22 So he appointed his brethren captains over each division of his army, Simon, and Joseph, and Jonathan, giving to each one fifteen hundred men. 23 And after the holy Book had been read to them by Esdras, and he had given them for a watchword, The help of God: himself leading the first band, he joined battle with Nicanor: 24 And the Almighty being their helper, they slew above nine thousand men: and having wounded and disabled the greater part of Nicanor's army, they obliged them to fly. 25 And they took the money of them that came to buy them, and they pursued them on every side.
26 But they came back for want of time: for it was the day before the sabbath: and therefore they did not continue the pursuit. 27 But when they had gathered together their arms and their spoils, they kept the sabbath: blessing the Lord who had delivered them that day, distilling the beginning of mercy upon them. 28 Then after the sabbath they divided the spoils to the feeble and the orphans, and the widows: and the rest they took for themselves and their servants. 29 When this was done, and they had all made a common supplication, they besought the merciful Lord to be reconciled to his servants unto the end. 30 Moreover they slew above twenty thousand of them that were with Timotheus and Bacchides who fought them, and they made themselves masters of the high strong holds: and they divided amongst them many spoils, giving equal portions to the feeble, the fatherless and the widows, yea and the aged also.
31 And when they had carefully gathered together their arms, they laid them all up in convenient places, and the residue of their spoils they carried to Jerusalem: 32 They slew also Philarches who was with Timotheus, a wicked man, who had many ways afflicted the Jews. 33 And when they kept the feast of the victory at Jerusalem, they burnt Callisthenes, that had set fire to the holy gates, who had taken refuge in a certain house, rendering to him a worthy reward for his impieties: 34 But as for that most wicked man Nicanor, who had brought a thousand merchants to the sale of the Jews, 35 Being through the help of the Lord brought down by them, of whom he had made no account, laying; aside his garment of glory, fleeing through the midland country, he came alone to Antioch, being rendered very unhappy by the destruction of his army.
36 And he that had promised to levy the tribute for the Romans by the means of the captives of Jerusalem, now professed that the Jews had God for their protector, and therefore they could not be hurt, because they followed the laws appointed by him.
You guys certainly get your knickers in a twist easily.
Bishop Williamson says the Society will not compromise the faith for an opportunity at "recognition" .. the Vatican says the Society must accept the Council. Sounds like the stage is set for an unforeseen miracle. I would be more excited except that the Lord has already tipped His hand and told us how it will end.
His Church will be united.
And yet, me thinks the ol' "We all know how it ends" line is all-too-dangerous as well... Heck, why BOTHER doing anything at all, when we ALL know how it ends? WRONG. This kind of thinking eviscerates the Church Militant. And I've heard it FAR too many times from the mouths of apostate Churchmen. (Cardinal O'Malley comes to mind....)
I would look especially to the Superior General for information regarding any doctrinal discussions. Official statements on a matter so serious for so many seem to be the most reliable way to go.
I have learned much from Bishop Williamson's columns over the years, I just don't really know what purpose this particular one serves.
Sad, but true. It is exactly my reaction too. Really enjoyed reading his columns.
But this one makes me very very sad. Almost lose any hope in the reconciliation.
Bishop Williamson seems to be one of the very few to see these doctrinal disscussions with reality. The reality of the possible dangers,pitfalls,etc. It is not out of the realmn of possibility for the Society to be swayed by either the carrot or the threat. They are after all men subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us...even much more so as they are tempted to a far greater degree. Bishop Willimson is simply stating what could be,and there is nothing wrong with that. I have been with the Society for almost twenty years and I know many within the Society have rose colored glasses on when it comes to our beloved bishops and priests but that is a very dangerous way of looking at them. They are priests but they are still men subject to all human frailness. Bottom line,they need prayed for as much if not more so than many of us.
Bishop Williamson has known Bp. Fellay ever since Bp. Fellay joined the Society. Have you?
Your answer is not relevant either. What is relevant is that all four Bishop's need to be on the same playing field when they enter into these doctrinal discussions.
An Interview With Bishop De Galarreta
The following are excerpts taken from The Angelus, July 2009
Many wonder why the Pope issued the decree of January 21. Some speak of an intention to first absorb and then silence the SSPX. Others speak of a simple act of benevolence of the Pope. What is your opinion?
It is difficult to know the intentions, but by what one can infer from the facts, there are probably several different reasons. It seems indisputable to me that we can find on the Pope’s part some good will to restore justice and benevolence. But at the same time it is also clear that what they expect in Rome is that these actions and contacts will allow them to place us inside the “ecclesiastical dynamics” that would smooth the rough edges we’re supposed to have; for example, what Rome calls our rigidity and our uncompromising stand in respect to dogma. So they expect to “moderate” us a bit, incorporating also some positive things from us.
Another important aspects is Benedict XVI’s desire to demonstrate the continuity of Vatican II with Tradition: If you want to prove that there is continuity, we must be allowed to exist and live within the confines of the conciliar Church. Certainly Rome’s view of things and of us is the greatest danger of the future contacts.
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 3282 Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:07 pm Post subject:
Sam wrote:
penitent99 wrote:
Sam wrote:
What is relevant is that all four Bishop's need to be on the same playing field when they enter into these doctrinal discussions. H.E. Bishop Williamson portrays at times and in some of his blog's that discussions are useless. Where as the other Bishop's are more optimistic. Now is not the time for Williamson to sow discord among the Society. I for one am glad he is not part of the discussions, on the other hand I am saddened that the Society could use his expertise.
The modernists in Rome have for years been trying to play Bp. Williamson, as the most outspoken of the four Society bishops, off against the other three, trying to isolate and marginalize him. For him to honestly speak his mind is no more "sowing discord" now than it was ten years ago. Furthermore, you oversimplify to the point of distortion when you say that HE portrays the upcoming discussions as useless. To acknowledge the real dangers associated with dealing with an unrepentant and stubbornly modernist Rome is merely to be realistic.
I have emailed for subscription but to no avail....twice
Melanie
You are not consciously being ignored. We add everyone who emails us.
More than likely your email program is blocking the email. Check your spam folder, check your settings, and if there's nothing there, email my personal email at stephenheiner@gmail.com and I will fix it myself. _________________ Stephen Heiner
truerestoration.blogspot.com
Why do some people insist on seeing disagreement among the SSPX bishops where there is merely a difference in expressing the same fundamental opinion?
From the interview:
Quote:
[Apcom:] For Williamson, the Second Vatican Council is a "poisoned cake", to be thrown in the "dustbin"; for Tissier de Mallerais, the Council should be "cancelled"; and for Alfonso de Gallareta [sic] there is not "much to salvage" from the Council: is there a division inside the Fraternity of Saint Pius X? How do you intend to solve it? The Vatican maintains that there are divisions inside the Fraternity.
[Fellay:] I might say that I do not see union even in the Vatican. The problem in the Church of our age is not us. We have become a problem only because we say that there is a problem. Besides, even if we may give the impression of opposing or even contradictory declarations, there are no internal fractures. For example, on the Council, we may say that almost all of it is to be rejected. But it may also be said that what is possible should be salvaged. But we all can never say the same thing. The Council is a mixture: there are good things, and bad. Even the Pope, when he maintains that a hermeneutic of continuity is to be desired, that he does not want a rupture, rejects the Council interpreted as rupture.
The interviewer, having failed in his effort to get Bp. Fellay to confirm the conciliarist contention that the SSPX is "fractured", then tries for a condemnation of the target du jour...
Quote:
[Apcom:] Williamson says that the Council is a "poisoned cake" to be thrown away in the "dustbin". Does this phrase not seem to you a bit strong? Are you in agreement with it?
[Fellay:] It is a controversial phrase, but I do not condemn him. So many declarations today are made in a controversial tome, it is a provocation made in order to make people think. I would state the concept in another way, but I do not know if I am not in agreement. I would say it in another way, I would say that we must transcend the Council to return to that which the Church has always taught, and from which the Church cannot separate herself, and in a certain moment we must transcend the Council which intended to be pastoral, and not doctrinal. Which wished to concern itself with the mutable situation of the Church. But things change, and so many things of the Council are now worn-out.
The interviewer made a couple other attempts to draw out a condemnation of Bp.Williamson, but ended up going 0-for-4. I trust that if he'd had the column currently under discussion as ammunition, it would've been 0-for-5.
Why do some people insist on seeing disagreement among the SSPX bishops where there is merely a difference in expressing the same fundamental opinion?
From the interview:
Quote:
[Apcom:] For Williamson, the Second Vatican Council is a "poisoned cake", to be thrown in the "dustbin"; for Tissier de Mallerais, the Council should be "cancelled"; and for Alfonso de Gallareta [sic] there is not "much to salvage" from the Council: is there a division inside the Fraternity of Saint Pius X? How do you intend to solve it? The Vatican maintains that there are divisions inside the Fraternity.
[Fellay:] I might say that I do not see union even in the Vatican. The problem in the Church of our age is not us. We have become a problem only because we say that there is a problem. Besides, even if we may give the impression of opposing or even contradictory declarations, there are no internal fractures. For example, on the Council, we may say that almost all of it is to be rejected. But it may also be said that what is possible should be salvaged. But we all can never say the same thing. The Council is a mixture: there are good things, and bad. Even the Pope, when he maintains that a hermeneutic of continuity is to be desired, that he does not want a rupture, rejects the Council interpreted as rupture.
The interviewer, having failed in his effort to get Bp. Fellay to confirm the conciliarist contention that the SSPX is "fractured", then tries for a condemnation of the target du jour...
Quote:
[Apcom:] Williamson says that the Council is a "poisoned cake" to be thrown away in the "dustbin". Does this phrase not seem to you a bit strong? Are you in agreement with it?
[Fellay:] It is a controversial phrase, but I do not condemn him. So many declarations today are made in a controversial tome, it is a provocation made in order to make people think. I would state the concept in another way, but I do not know if I am not in agreement. I would say it in another way, I would say that we must transcend the Council to return to that which the Church has always taught, and from which the Church cannot separate herself, and in a certain moment we must transcend the Council which intended to be pastoral, and not doctrinal. Which wished to concern itself with the mutable situation of the Church. But things change, and so many things of the Council are now worn-out.
The interviewer made a couple other attempts to draw out a condemnation of Bp.Williamson, but ended up going 0-for-4. I trust that if he'd had the column currently under discussion as ammunition, it would've been 0-for-5.
Glornt, I am glad you pointed this out. And if I had time, I would look for other such quotes. I know there are more, by all the bishops.
Glornt, I am glad you pointed this out. And if I had time, I would look for other such quotes. I know there are more, by all the bishops.
An interview with Bishop De Galarreta May 2, 2009
Q: What prospects do you see for the Society of St. Pius X in the future? An agreement with Rome? A canonical recognition?
BDG: Not at all, either in the immediate future or for a while. We actually reject this possibility. We know that until Rome returns to tradition, any practical or canonical agreement is incompatible with the
confession and public defense of the Faith, and would mean our death. In the best case, humanly speaking, we have several years of discussions ahead of us.
Joined: 15 Feb 2006 Posts: 1758 Location: Louisiana
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject:
Thank you, Giovanni. Somehow, even though he said essentially the same thing as Bp. Williamson, I don't expect sniping season on Bp. De Galarreta to open on this thread.
And this, folks, is the chairman of the SSPX side of the doctrinal discussions with the Vatican. Let's hear it again how Bp. Williamson is making trouble. Clearly, we're not talking about a couple of rounds of papers back and forth between Rome and Econe with a shiny new canonical status springing forth before Christmas.
Still, I continue to pray for miracles... for the success of the SSPX in these discussions, and for the related miracles of the canonization of Archbishop Lefebvre and the ending of the Novus Ordo experiment.
Thank you, Giovanni. Somehow, even though he said essentially the same thing as Bp. Williamson, I don't expect sniping season on Bp. De Galarreta to open on this thread.
And this, folks, is the chairman of the SSPX side of the doctrinal discussions with the Vatican. Let's hear it again how Bp. Williamson is making trouble. Clearly, we're not talking about a couple of rounds of papers back and forth between Rome and Econe with a shiny new canonical status springing forth before Christmas.
Still, I continue to pray for miracles... for the success of the SSPX in these discussions, and for the related miracles of the canonization of Archbishop Lefebvre and the ending of the Novus Ordo experiment.
Exactly.
I came across a few other quotes:
http://www.cfnews.org/Tissier-July4.htm
In a line of questions about the theological discussions which should take place with the Vatican:
[La Vie:] When you speak of settling the arguments, do you foresee the way of compromise, which would allow your positions and Rome's to coexist?
[Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:] «We will never sign compromises; the discussions will not advance unless Rome reforms its viewpoint and recognizes the errors to which the Council has brought the Church.»
La Stampa: But, in a practical sense, what are the steps which must take place?
[Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:] -"There will be doctrinal theological discussions regarding doctrines of the Second Vatican Council between the delegates of the Holy See and us."
La Stampa: But do you think of turning back regarding your disagreements?
[Bishop Tissier de Mallerais:] -"No, absolutely not. We do not change our positions, but we have the intention of converting Rome [to our positions], that is, to lead Rome towards our positions."
http://www.sspx.co.uk/page3.htm
On 31st July 2009 Bishop Fellay gave an significant interview to an Italian news agency which contained the following important points, summarized herewith:
* There is no division amongst the four Society bishops with regard to Vatican II. Almost everything in the Council is to be rejected. We need to go beyond the Council, which was pastoral and not doctrinal, and return to that which the Church has always taught. We cannot make any compromise on the Council; truth does not tolerate compromise.
I'm a little confused on why we are entering into these discussions with Rome and what exactly is supposed to be hoped for.
I have a conference on tape given by Bp. Fellay a few years ago regarding relations with Rome and he states very specifically that he did not believe at all that Rome's coversion could ever come about through doctrinal discussions. He called it "human means". He states that the situation is so bad in the Church that "it can in no way be fixed by human means". He goes on to say that it can only be fixed by supernatural means,by God alone. Why then is there a different thinking process now toward these discussions? The only one who has never wavered in regard to the reality of these discussiond has been Bp. Williamson.
I'm a little confused on why we are entering into these discussions with Rome and what exactly is supposed to be hoped for.
me too!
Quote:
I have a conference on tape given by Bp. Fellay a few years ago regarding relations with Rome and he states very specifically that he did not believe at all that Rome's coversion could ever come about through doctrinal discussions. He called it "human means". He states that the situation is so bad in the Church that "it can in no way be fixed by human means". He goes on to say that it can only be fixed by supernatural means,by God alone. Why then is there a different thinking process now toward these discussions? The only one who has never wavered in regard to the reality of these discussiond has been Bp. Williamson.
Bishop Fellay is right. But Our Holy Father says the same, it comes from God and we must pray a lot for it.
Joined: 30 Nov 2005 Posts: 3282 Location: People's Republic of Kalifornia
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:18 pm Post subject:
JOARC wrote:
Bp. Fellay ... states that the situation is so bad in the Church that "it can in no way be fixed by human means". He goes on to say that it can only be fixed by supernatural means, by God alone.
Sometimes God uses people to manifest His will. We can't presume that God will use this way or that way to accomplish it.
Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 1444 Location: Rochester, NH
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:48 pm Post subject:
You gotta do conversation with Rome. Especially if they make the first invitation. You gotta.
Of course, I don't expect much, and I do resent the waste of my Bishop's time (meaning the SPPX) but what the heck. How can you not converse with Rome?
I don't doubt for a New York minute that Bishop Fellay or any of them are going to be seduced by the glories of Vatican II. Please.
And, any criticisms of Bp. Williamson go right over my head. Save the good stuff for somebody else.
If Rome is calling for "dialog", whatever that means, the Bishops of SPPX have gotta do it. That's it, and that's all. But I don't expect, and I doubt they expect, anything to come of it.
In the meantime, we got a Crusade to pray for, right??? That's what counts!
Time will certainly tell.
My point however is,why according to Bp. Fellay were these discussions a waste of time a few years ago and now Heaven forbid if someone tries to state what could be certain dangers in dealing with Rome.
I really have my doubts that by this means Rome will have a change of heart during or after these discussions.
I will continue to pray my rosary for the consecration of Russia and I will certainly hope for good things from these talks but I do think it will take a miracle. It is hearts we are dealing with and only God can bring about that change.
Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 1444 Location: Rochester, NH
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:47 pm Post subject:
Well, JOARC, if you can hope something will come out of these talks, good for you. You got alot of what I ain't got.
In fact, I'm so hopeless, if it was me, I'd slouch into the talks with a major chip on my shoulder. (Waddaya want?)
Talk is cheap. That's what the Vatican doesn't get. They've been flappin their lips for decades now, with anyone who smiles at them. Action is what counts.
Of course, we did get a teeny bit of action. Remember the Motu Proprio threads? (They were hilarious. To all you new people, my birthday is August 2nd.) But didn't our Holy Father wipe the smile off my head when he issued SP. And then he undid the excommunications. The chip on my shoulder might be a hindrance in these days.
I have trust in Bishop Fellay. I don't know; I love him. I mean, I LOVE him. I love to watch his speeches, I love his reasoning, the gentle way he has about him, and yet, there's no fooling with him. That's the part I love. He thinks on his feet, and he always gets to the root of the argument. He's got wisdom. If I'm going to root between him and our Holy Father in the ring, heck, Bishop Fellay would knock out the Holy Father in the first round, God forgive me. I just resent the waste of his time. I also know he's just a man, and prone to temptation, so I always pray for him, and all the Society, rank and file.
Well, JOARC, if you can hope something will come out of these talks, good for you. You got alot of what I ain't got.
In fact, I'm so hopeless, if it was me, I'd slouch into the talks with a major chip on my shoulder. (Waddaya want?)
Talk is cheap. That's what the Vatican doesn't get. They've been flappin their lips for decades now, with anyone who smiles at them. Action is what counts.
Of course, we did get a teeny bit of action. Remember the Motu Proprio threads? (They were hilarious. To all you new people, my birthday is August 2nd.) But didn't our Holy Father wipe the smile off my head when he issued SP. And then he undid the excommunications. The chip on my shoulder might be a hindrance in these days.
I have trust in Bishop Fellay. I don't know; I love him. I mean, I LOVE him. I love to watch his speeches, I love his reasoning, the gentle way he has about him, and yet, there's no fooling with him. That's the part I love. He thinks on his feet, and he always gets to the root of the argument. He's got wisdom. If I'm going to root between him and our Holy Father in the ring, heck, Bishop Fellay would knock out the Holy Father in the first round, God forgive me. I just resent the waste of his time. I also know he's just a man, and prone to temptation, so I always pray for him, and all the Society, rank and file.
Forgive me dailyrosary, but it seems that you are not thinking about the whole Church, but only of your own society.
The common good of the whole Church is what Bishop Fellay wants to achieve, and what Our Holy Father wants to achieve. To think of them fighting against each other? Sorry, the LOVE FOR THE MOTHER CHURCH MUST BE THE FIRST PLACE IN THE THINKING OF EVERYONE WHO CALLS HIMSELF A CATHOLIC.
They should be fighting shoulder to shoulder as soldiers for the Catholic Faith and for the Lord. But not against each other.
My understanding dailyrosary was that the discussions were a prerequisit of the Society not the other way around. So it is not Rome asking to talk it's us. As for your chip on the shoulder just keep praying and hoping for the consecration of Russia,I believe that is the definitive answer. I hope we will all be a little more merciful and compassionate when referencing the Holy Father no matter how exasperating the situation.
Joined: 15 Feb 2006 Posts: 1758 Location: Louisiana
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:29 pm Post subject:
Look again at the third paragraph from our "official pessimist" Bp. Williamson:
Quote:
Therefore the most that can be hoped for on the side of the Romans is that to the Catholic Truth laid before them by the SSPX, a handful of them will react positively, most likely in private -- may they save their souls ! On the side of the SSPX, at best it will have witnessed to the Truth at the summit of the Church where it most matters, and even if on those heights it does little to no apparent good, still one may hope that an open account of the “discussions” presented afterwards to all Catholics of good will may reinforce their grasp of that doctrine by which Catholics are Catholics, and strengthen their Catholic common sense that, naturally and supernaturally, 2 and 2 make 4 and nothing else.
These are hardly the words of someone who considers these discussions to be a waste of time. Humanly speaking, there is no way the crisis in the Church will be resolved under the leadership of any of the Vatican II participants; there is too much pride in their great "accomplishment", both among those who knowingly shoved the train off the tracks and those who thought they were clever enough to be able to please everyone with tricky language. It is necessary to at least expose the next generation of Church leadership to untainted Catholic doctrine, in hopes that when we get past the current generation of non-leaders there will still be actual Catholics among the hierarchy.
In mathematical/logical terms, while the discussions are probably not sufficient to set things right, they are almost certainly necessary. I believe that the various statements made by all of the SSPX bishops are consistent with this view.
I'm a little confused on why we are entering into these discussions with Rome and what exactly is supposed to be hoped for.
Excuse me, but who do you mean by 'we'? The SSPX is entering into discussions. The SSPX has around 500 members, unless you're one of them (Hi Father!), you're NOT entering into those discussions.
Obviousy coucou...or should I say koo-kooooo,what the Society does with regard to Rome and these talks or agreements will have a direct affect upon the faithful . Maybe if you got your head out of theclouds long enough you might....nevermind I can tell your intelligence level isn't up for this thread.
Time will certainly tell.
My point however is,why according to Bp. Fellay were these discussions a waste of time a few years ago and now Heaven forbid if someone tries to state what could be certain dangers in dealing with Rome.
I really have my doubts that by this means Rome will have a change of heart during or after these discussions.
I will continue to pray my rosary for the consecration of Russia and I will certainly hope for good things from these talks but I do think it will take a miracle. It is hearts we are dealing with and only God can bring about that change.
Consider the impact these doctrinal discussions could have on souls watching things from the sidelines. Rome has literally handed over to the SSPX a global pulpit. That Rome should allow the SSPX to oppose, to exhort, and to correct Rome's top "theologians" is an implicit concession of prestige and authority. It is an admission against its own interests - which is why we see the hand of God in all of this. Rome cannot condemn Tradition. In reality it is powerless against it. Were not Rome in the wrong, it would have the moral authority to crush the SSPX opposition.
In this historically unique set of circumstances we witness an authentic capitulation of Church authority to Eternal and Revealed Truth. As Bishop Williamson has said, there is a disconnect in the Church between authority and the very Truth which is that authority's source. In this surreal tableau we see the summit of Church authority bend its ear to the words of the humble servants of God - to the truth and to the power of Almighty God.
It is a spectacle - a sign - a wonder.
The SSPX has been sent - by God, I have no doubt - via this new form of communication, to the world, so that the world may hear articulated the things necessary for its salvation. If Rome stops Her mouth, then the SSPX shall cry out. If the SSPX stops its mouth, then others will cry out:
I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out.
Whether or not Rome converts is irrelevant to the importance of this new mission from God. Just as in Summorum Pontificum - a launching of a mission from God, notwithstanding confounded papal intentions - the Pope gave permission for priests to say the True and Eternal Mass and pray the traditional Breviary without any express permission from the local ordinaries (he went over the bishops' heads), so too the Lord is using the SSPX to call the earth - even over the head of the Pope!
The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken: and He hath called the earth. From the rising of the sun, to the going down thereof: Out of Sion the loveliness of His beauty. God shall come manifestly: our God shall come, and shall not keep silence. A fire shall burn before Him: and a mighty tempest shall be round about Him. He shall call heaven from above, and the earth, to judge his people. Gather ye together His saints to Him: who set his covenant before sacrifices.
Let souls with eyes to see, see, and ears to hear, hear. God is gathering unto Himself the souls of His elect throughout the Earth.
How then shall they call on Him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe Him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!
Thank you Cant. for your clearly well thought out and insightful answer to my original question. I appreciate the help in trying to understand this! What you said makes a great deal of sense. Very well articulated. God bless!
Thank you Cant. for your clearly well thought out and insightful answer to my original question. I appreciate the help in trying to understand this! What you said makes a great deal of sense. Very well articulated. God bless!
what the Society does with regard to Rome and these talks or agreements will have a direct affect upon the faithful
I understand you're a faithfull of the SSPX. So you're not a member. So when you speak of the SSPX you can't say "we". You make it sounds as if "you" (/"we") decided this and that. Which is not the case.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
