Q. Monsignour, you had a chance to meet with Benedict XVI at long last. What were the circumstances in which your interview took place?
A. It’s been since the year 2000 that we have had some discussions with Rome to try to see how we can improve our relations with the official church. But it is necessary to say that the first step did come from Rome. We always asserted that we were Catholic, and we showed it by the pilgrimage to Rome in the Holy year -this pilgrimage was marked by a lot of spirit, including in the Curia. I think that there was an element of determination in the manner of the Roman Authorities. Nevertheless it is certain that our analysis of the current position of the church is different from them. This is the nub of the problem. But, in this context, we thought that it was useful, and even necessary, to show publicly that we were Catholic, and that we recognize the Holy Father, testifying to that by our deference. While noting his concern regarding the crisis facing the Church, we tried to suggest to him that Tradition could be the solution to this crisis, and that for our part we are thoroughly convinced of this.
Q. The Pope has the avantage of being well acquainted with your particular case. You underlined in DICI three points that the Holy Father needs to address to improve the present state of affairs: the state of necessity which you invoked, as it relates to the relationship you have with the Pope, the reading of the Council in light of Tradition, and the question of how such a reading would impact on the structure and practices of it. Did this discussion bring about a response to any of the conditions you set before him?
A. It is plainly evident that we hold some of these points in common. This is not a dialog between those who cannot hear one another. There are issues that need to be addressed and and expounded upon with success. Otherwise, all discussion would be absolutely useless. Nevertheless, and this has been our problem from the beginning, we end up colliding with one another because of a lack of understanding on the part of Rome with regards to our position. Nevertheless I think that one arrives, little by little, to an understanding of what we can do to make ourselves better understood. Again, this is not a resolved issue, but there is obviously some progress. And for this progress to continue with our Human discussion, there is another necessity that we must speak of, which is the Grace that our Good Lord may infuse in both of us as interlocutors. As such, it is the fundamental reason we approach this problem with the firm will to resolve it. This is not to say that the resolution to this problem lies in sharing common opinion, coming to an agreement, and then all is regulated. For one can say that the Society of St. Pius X is in some dispute with Roman authority, and now this Roman authority is disposed to enter into negotiations, to come to an agreement, therefore an agreement is done, and all is well. This reasoning presupposes that we pose a problem to Rome, a problem yes, but we are not the problem. We are only an informer. Our position is only the consequence of the major problems in the Church. And, so far, one is left with the impression that the authorities in the Church -the hierarchy usually, not only Rome, but also the diocesan bishops -did or do not want to see this problem that for is us evidence: there is a problem in the church, and a major problem. Then when one hears the current Pope, and, in the recent years, Cardinal Ratzinger, recognize that there is a serious crisis in the church, while we are confused by that, we are again given hope. Because evidently if one wants to look for the solutions, it is necessary first to recognize that there is a problem. This is the reason I think that one advances. And this is the way in which it is necessary to continue on, to arrive to true solution. It is true that Cardinal Ratzinger has been acquainted with and reviewing our case for a long time. As that is the case, of all those with their hands in this fine kettle ‘o fish, he’s the most likely one to understand the problem.
Q. This advance, was it a quality jump due to the new Pope, or is it that you finally found progress after being at it for such a long time?
A. A little bit of both. I think that there is a progression with the new Pope. Is it quality? I hope so! Though I’m not absolutely certain. But I hope it is nonetheless. The Italian journalist Messori relates a small story:
He said that one day when he tried to point out to JPII that there were things going on in the Church that shouldn’t be, he placed his fist on the table to emphasize that all was well, while Cardinal Ratzinger, who was at his side, recognized that all was not well. I think that there really is a will on the part of Benedict XVI to put the brakes on some of the things that have been advanced by the Council. Is it necessary to say stop them? I think it is. To eliminate them? I hope so. But even with that, where does that leave us? This is what makes me hesitant to talk about a quality jump, because I believe that when all is said and done, the same principles that animated John Paul II also animate Benedict XVI.
Q. Even for you, insofar as the state of necessity is concerned, when one sees Campos, and knowing the reservations you have regarding who has been granted its place of worship, most frequently in latter times, where do you draw the line?
A. The necessity state is a state in which one is obliged to call upon means, out of the ordinary, if necessary for one to survive. In other words, say that if in following the orders that have been given us through the Canonical statute one can harm many souls, either at the level of Faith or Liturgy, that is the description of a state of necessity. A state of necessity will no longer exist, the moment the priests and the faithful attached to Tradition will be able to live in a normal way, and have a normal development of their Catholic life. That isn’t to say that solves all of the Church’s disorders. But this is a good place to start: if the principles are clearly established in the Church, for example if the Pope says Tradition has the right to exist, this is a case in which one could no longer speak of a state of necessity. Does a canonical statute as the one for Campos eliminate the state of necessity? I’m not so sure! Because this statute is subject to conditions and the conditions always are: the acceptance of the new mass and Council! This is where the problem lies. Let us be frank: why do so many of the faithful flock to us? Mostly because they were displaced by the Liturgy of the Council. They then felt they had to take a step that cost them enormously, because of the shock they endured. Now, they rediscovered their peace thanks to the Traditional Liturgy, and now are faced with a propostion that says we will normalize your position, and you will be able to have this Tridentine Mass, but you must also accept the other one that shocked you or did you so poorly. The gist of which is: if you want to have a normalized position, you are obliged to accept as a norm a Liturgy that can displace you. That is hard to accept.
Q. But, if you accept the current discussions and solutions based on what is humanly possible, can there be a co-existence?
A. It is difficult to maintain these opposed postions! In one House, the rule must be common. Or do we have two parallel houses? Completely. I distinguish between the following two things: the principle and the consequences that follow it. For example, in a house, you have a gas leak that starts a fire. The moment that you cut the gas, the fire will still last for a little while yet, but it will shortly be extinguished. We ask this: focus on the gas leak, cut the line. Even if it re-ignites at that moment, we will agree to cooperate; but it is necessary to identify the destructive principle and to make sure the destructive principle is no longer being stoked.
Q. But it is only an analogy!
A. Ah no, no! This is a lot more than an analogy. The principles of Tradition must be reestablished. So if these principles are not reestablished, we cannot cooperate. This would be like attempting to put out the fire, while leaving intact the destructive cause.
Q. There is a huge difference in perspective. These principles that you denounce, are those that they consider habitual; and not destructive!
A. Exactly. It is necessary to take advantage of these discussions to bring Roman authorities to an evaluation of the different position. The perspective difference is not total; there already exists in Rome and among the bishops, people that perfectly understood and understand this position and its causes. Concretely: that things are going poorly in the Church, that there is no longer any vocations, what is contained in the Liturgy doesn‘t seem of utmost importance, the catechism is no longer of use, the Catholic schools are steadily disappearing! All that points to the fact that the Catholic life is dying. There are causes. And we say: as you leave the causes in place, that makes cooperation nearly impossible. Let us work to eliminate these causes and come to an agreement. If we felt Rome had this will we would be right at her side. But as Rome will say to us, come to work and leave your principles of Tradition aside, it is impossible.
Q. As to the the question of the Mass and the most basic tenet of your request, it appears that you may be able to liberalize it in a partial manner. Why are you optimistic, do you think that you will finally be of one accord? And do you retain some pessimism as this has not been brought to completion? And what about partial liberalization?
A. I base this upon that which has happened so far. One sees very well that Rome -the Pope and certain prelates -perfectly understand that the former Mass cannot be forbidden, that there is no theological argument nor any canonical agrument that allow forbidding this Mass. This is a just issue, and Rome knows that we believe that one day or another there will be a liberalization. Not to allow this to occur is an injustice. Then, why not a total liberalization? Because these same authorities, who recognize the justness of our position are hemmed in, and extremely bothered by the attitude of the progressives on the other side, and they fear the consequences of the reaction of those progressives, and what that could do to the Church. These are their own words. They would like to extend a more generous permission than the one that exists today, because they see well that the indult is currently too dependent on the bad will of the bishops, and this causes them to be hesitant of even talking about this more generous permission. It seems they believe more liberty is necessary, but not so much as to excite the progressives. This is the compromise.
Q. How could this partial liberalization express itself in practice?
A. Very simply. We ask that that right be a recognized right of the church. Since this is a just request, recognize the right of that request. Simply said: this mass is not forbidden. This is all; and then after that let us see what will happen. Leave that to the experience, and working out of Tradition.
Q. And what do you think will be the effects of partial liberalization?
A. There will be opposition from the ranks of those dead set against this Mass, because they see in its re-implementation the negation of the Council and reforms, and, perhaps from other ranks, that see in this liberalization, potential chaos in their diocese you will see more pragmatism. I don’t believe that this is personal, but others seem to perceive it as such. For us, it is not a question of winning or losing. It goes a lot deeper than that. We see in this Mass a principle solution to help us emerge from this crisis. This is not a simple question of Liturgy: This is the sacrifice of Our Lord in the Holy Liturgy, this is an extremely powerful remedy to help reestablish the life of Grace, to restore Catholic principles, faith, moral requirements, that in a comparatively short time will alter this harmful climate, this modern spirit in the Church, which demolishes everything. This is why we request the Mass. Not for us, since we have it already, but for the church, for all the souls that suffer, thirst and suffocate, so that they can breathe again. Of course, this will also be good for us, but first it will be good for the Church. Again, we are not the problem. But we could bring a part of the solution to the major problems facing the Church.
Q. If the Society were to be perceived as a major problem, would you be willing to dissolve it, as an offering of appeasement, if you got what you were looking for?
A. I don‘t think this is a solution. As Mgr Lefebvre said, once the Pope returns to Tradition, we will deposit our episcopate in his hands. We are completely disposed to doing it. But we see very well that Rome views us in a favorable light, because she perceives what a potential good we are for the Church. Therefore it would be counterproductive, not to mention contradictory, to say that this potential good must be destroyed for the good of Church.
Q. But this solution would not be the strict purview of the Society. There is the Ecclesia Dei Community which engenders certain points of discussion!
A. When we interact with Rome, we never interact with the limited perspective of the Society. We keep in mind the good of all Communities attached to Tradition. We cannot imagine coming to a separate agreement, while leaving others out of the plan.
Q. You said that there isn’t anything to negotiate with Rome.
A. You can’t negotiate that which in non-negotiable. Faith is simple, it cannot be dissected into pieces, it is all or nothing. We want all of it. And we have the right to receive all of this from the church, and we do claim this. Nothing more, but nothing less.
Q. Is this then the serious restriction that you previously mentioned regarding your discussion with Rome?
A. Yes. To all that will act to undercut our Faith, we will be obliged to say no.
Q. Then, of course, there is the issue of the Council which seems likely to be an impediment?
A. There is no doubt that this is a/the major problem.
Q. And does the Pope see it as you do?
A. Yes, he sees it as a major problem too!
Q. But is there any part of the Council which you would be willing to negotiate on?
A. Yes, I think so. With regards to Vatican II not being recognized as the final word or Council. This is a Council that was declared Pastoral, it never claimed infallibility, and by virtue of that is subject to discussion. And since it can be called into question -a small portion of that having to do with the former Mass having never been eliminated, and for which we ask the right to celebrate it freely--then, as far as this Council is concerned, we ask for the liberty to discuss it. While specifying that the Council itself was designed to be pastoral and not dogmatic, and as such operates under a special and concrete set of circumstances. It is historically open to this by its very nature. One can discuss it, as it has not been established as dogma.
Q. In the end, one cannot pretend the Council never existed. Once cannot turn back the clock to 1958.
A. No. We will find ourselves in 2006, 2007, 2008! We find ourselves here, today. The church must lift itself out of the pitiful state in which she finds herself , and that happens to be in our era.
Q. And what is it that will she be able to take away from of this experience?
A. She will have learned that on the one hand fidelity to the past is fruitful, and on the other, that the love of the world is barren. Will the Good Lord intervene as regards this lesson? This is not impossible, I do not exclude it, but I contemplate it with trembling.
Q. Along with these good things, there could also develop things within this general outline that you would not want to accept!
A. Well, the good and joyful developments will be preserved. The church is sufficiently wise, she is guided by the Holy-Spirit, she will know how to preserve these beneficial things.
Q. Would you mind discussing the problematic events that took place within the Society, and though while perhaps less important to you, the noise that they caused?
A. They did cause some noise, that is quite plain. And, I will gladly discuss them. On one hand, globally speaking, the Society is healthy, despite certain local problems. There were some disturbances of a sensitive nature that are not by any means common. In all families that are numerous, human problems present themselves from time to time. Here, the media inflated the problem, precisely because the priests that left us had remarkable media power. These were all gifted people. It is sad to lose them.
Q. And, is there nothing in the positions that they took which can be justified? Can an organization such as yours really put hard questions to itself, even if the hard questions are out of line, without provoking more of the same?
A. Absolutely, we are subject to that everyday. But, in every organization there are rules. As with Soccer teams which are a business, and in any corporation, you have a number of laws that it is necessary to respect, despite any prevailing problems. But, when it becomes a matter of someone who wants to expose these problems to bring down the organization, then it is the responsibility of the authority in place to protect the common good and the good of the organization against such attacks. And it is this that promted the authority to take grave measures.
Q. But, couldn’t the case be made that when the Society invokes a state of necessity with respect to Rome, the same state of necessity could rear itself within the Society?
A. This is the inherent danger with our position. We would never make the claim that our current position, as it relates to Rome, is a normal position. It is true that this position invites such comparisons, even if they are not justified. I would simply want to point out that it is not enough to just consider the unique acts, but the motive that inspires these acts. We think, that in terms of what was said and done, there was sufficient reason for arriving at the judgment which we did.
Q. You usually give the impression that you are an optimist. Is this natural or arrived at?
A. Faith! Faith gives me certainty. God will not abandon the Church, having promised her his assistance. God having promised his assistance to the church, will not abandon it. I see the church in pain, I see the church suffer, and I know, by faith, that this state will not last, that this crisis that wounds the souls, will be overcome. Though there will be other suffering, because I know also the Church militant, being that she is in the middle of a world that can hardly stand her, that there will be other suffering that will also need to be overcome. My optimism is really placed in the Lord. This is the essence of our religion as we learn to sing that our joy is in the Name of the Lord, our force, our assistance is in the Name of the Lord. The reason for my optimism can be found there.
Q. And that optimism, does it, in practice, reinforce itself?
A. I see a pattern. For a number of years it seems that one has arrived at a low point, but even at that point I think one is climbing back up. First of all, the generation of the men of the Council is coming to an end. The Good Lord recalls them to himself. The following generation, is one that did not know the Council or if so, only indirectly, and this generation is not attached to it as the generation that preceded it. These young priests feel an emptiness; they are looking for something more. And an advantage we have is that we are not acquainted with this feeling of emptiness, because we have the solution. It is doubtlessly a gift. One notes it everyday: the number of priests, and religious that orient themselves in this way, causes us to grow. Just as the number of bishops that are sympathetic to us. At present, these bishops remain silent; some are French! One receives testimonies of priests and of faithful ones that well show, that we are for them a hope, a very good thing. Not us personally, of course, but what it is that we do, and the method in which we live, and that which we hold on to. There are even general vicarages that say to us: hold firm, you are our only hope! This is rather new! And this is growing; a little like first grass in the desert. No longer a prairie, and the twigs begin to be sorted out. Not completely the spring, there are still not enough swallows. But one guesses that they are on their way!
Q. Is there therefore a certain satisfaction?
A. If it appears that we have a rather reserved enthusiasm, this is due to the fact that we wouldn’t want to build up an excessive amount of hope and enthusiasm among the priests and the faithful, only to have that end in disappointment. This is a slow process, chances look good. But if one suddenly gives way to a sort of exaggerated enthusiasm and then is disappointed, it is difficult to come back from that.
Q. Isn’t it needed even a little bit?
A. Of course! Once more one is headed in the right direction. Almost a year ago, cardinal Castrillon Hoyos confided a certain despondency to me. I replied: I am not discouraged. I see that we are advancing on the right side of things. It is slow, but is in the hands of our Good God.
This interview was first posted in French by our friend Zabojad, then meticulously translated by Albion Girl. God's blessings to them for their good works.
I believe Albion Girl may have provided the first English translation of this interview available anywhere. She's translated articles in Italian in the past.
She spent hours completing this tedious task. What a talent and a blessing she is!
I believe Albion Girl may have provided the first English translation of this interview available anywhere. She's translated articles in Italian in the past.
She spent hours completing this tedious task. What a talent and a blessing she is!
A labor of love no doubt! God bless you Albion Girl.
Q. If the Society were to be perceived as a major problem, would you be willing to dissolve it, as an offering of appeasement, if you got what you were looking for?
A. I don‘t think this is a solution. As Mgr Lefebvre said, once the Pope returns to Tradition, we will deposit our episcopate in his hands. We are completely disposed to doing it. But we see very well that Rome views us in a favorable light, because she perceives what a potential good we are for the Church. Therefore it would be counterproductive, not to mention contradictory, to say that this potential good must be destroyed for the good of Church.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The SSPX is a major problem only to liberals and the enemies of Christ who want to destroy the Catholic Church. It is a Godsend to those who love the Church, Jesus Christ, and who want to do God's will. _________________ http://romancatholicheroes.blogspot.com/
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:24 am Post subject: Fellay interview
"This is a slow process, chances look good."
With a fully regularized Society within the heart and soul of the Church, recognized by Rome, along with the FSSP and the ICKSP, the modernists/liberals/moderates will go out of their minds.
And many more laymen will frequent SSPX Masses, which will help spur the return to Tradition.
Let us keep praying to the Holy Souls for this intention, and for the full regularization of the Society of St. Pius X. Let us pray for Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Hoyos, Cardinal Estevez, and their intentions.
I attend an ICK parish, but every time I read Bp. Fellay, he makes a lot of sense. It sure seems that his intentions are honorable, and that he correctly identifies the problems facing the Church. He is also very charitable. All this leads me to hope for reconciliation despite the difficulties.
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:44 am Post subject: Re: Fellay interview
ecumenicaltraddie wrote:
"This is a slow process, chances look good."
With a fully regularized Society within the heart and soul of the Church, recognized by Rome, along with the FSSP and the ICKSP, the modernists/liberals/moderates will go out of their minds.
And many more laymen will frequent SSPX Masses, which will help spur the return to Tradition.
Let us keep praying to the Holy Souls for this intention, and for the full regularization of the Society of St. Pius X. Let us pray for Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Hoyos, Cardinal Estevez, and their intentions.
The only problem that I see with this is that because there are so many liberal elements in Rome at the moment, a fully regularized society may be limited ,curtailed and suppressed in many aspects. _________________ Mark N Janzic
Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 3062 Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:50 am Post subject:
Well, the only way that the Society will ever be regularized is as an apostolic administration with worldwide jurisdiction. So it's hard to see how the Society might be limited or curtailed. Consider Campos for a moment. Bp. Rifan's apostolate is currently limited to the Diocese of Campos and he has jurisdiction over that territory. He can establish parishes and missions within that territory with or without the permission of the diocesan Ordinary (he can establish parishes and missions outside that territory only with the permission of the local Ordinary). If the SSPX has worldwide jurisdiction, then they won't need the permission of local Ordinaries to set up parishes and missions. (Currently their parishes are missions, since they have no jurisdiction, but that's a topic for another time.) Too, disaffected conservatives, once they get over the initial shock of SSPX regularization, will flock to their chapels. Of that I have no doubt.
Well, the only way that the Society will ever be regularized is as an apostolic administration with worldwide jurisdiction. So it's hard to see how the Society might be limited or curtailed. Consider Campos for a moment. Bp. Rifan's apostolate is currently limited to the Diocese of Campos and he has jurisdiction over that territory. He can establish parishes and missions within that territory with or without the permission of the diocesan Ordinary (he can establish parishes and missions outside that territory only with the permission of the local Ordinary). If the SSPX has worldwide jurisdiction, then they won't need the permission of local Ordinaries to set up parishes and missions. (Currently their parishes are missions, since they have no jurisdiction, but that's a topic for another time.) Too, disaffected conservatives, once they get over the initial shock of SSPX regularization, will flock to their chapels. Of that I have no doubt.
But you are sure even with this worldwide jurisdiction they would not need the permission of the local ordinary?...are there any orders that currently enjoy this privilege that you know of? _________________ Mark N Janzic
Joined: 05 Aug 2004 Posts: 3062 Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:08 pm Post subject:
spikepaga wrote:
But you are sure even with this worldwide jurisdiction they would not need the permission of the local ordinary?...are there any orders that currently enjoy this privilege that you know of?
Bp. Rifan enjoys this privilege, but only (currently) in the territory of the Diocese of Campos. He does not need the permission of the Bishop of Campos to establish parishes and missions in that territory. He can simply do it.
If the SSPX were regularized, one would assume that they would have this "privilege" throughout the world. I am certain that they would accept nothing less.
But you are sure even with this worldwide jurisdiction they would not need the permission of the local ordinary?...are there any orders that currently enjoy this privilege that you know of?
Bp. Rifan enjoys this privilege, but only (currently) in the territory of the Diocese of Campos. He does not need the permission of the Bishop of Campos to establish parishes and missions in that territory. He can simply do it.
If the SSPX were regularized, one would assume that they would have this "privilege" throughout the world. I am certain that they would accept nothing less.
Let us pray that that indeed is the only arrangement Bishop Fellay will accept _________________ Mark N Janzic
The SSPX will go the way of all schismatic (irregular) groups (I define this group as the excommunicated bishops, priests, and those who formally adhere to the group). As Bishop Fellay said about the gas and fire. The gas was cut off in 1988 and the fire that now may continue will eventually go out or divide into many different little flames. Mark these words.
The SSPX will go the way of all schismatic (irregular) groups (I define this group as the excommunicated bishops, priests, and those who formally adhere to the group). As Bishop Fellay said about the gas and fire. The gas was cut off in 1988 and the fire that now may continue will eventually go out or divide into many different little flames. Mark these words.
Joseph
Perhaps you have been inhaling the gas _________________ Mark N Janzic
Joined: 26 Jun 2004 Posts: 422 Location: somewhere in the Old South
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:06 pm Post subject:
JPietras wrote:
The SSPX will go the way of all schismatic (irregular) groups (I define this group as the excommunicated bishops, priests, and those who formally adhere to the group). As Bishop Fellay said about the gas and fire. The gas was cut off in 1988 and the fire that now may continue will eventually go out or divide into many different little flames. Mark these words.
Joseph
Hello Joseph glad to see ya. ...... But I think you stumbuled on the a website that will not favor your point of view. Just a theory, but then I suspect you will not find much more comfort in how things will play out in our relationship with Rome. You may find yourself eating humble pie in the near future (I truth this will not gag you too much) Just the same stick arround, who knows you may learn a thing or two.
Now don't forget to share with your friends. After all it is the Christian thing to do. _________________ BEWARE OF ERRORS OUT OF RUSSIA
Mark in the Old South
The SSPX will go the way of all schismatic (irregular) groups (I define this group as the excommunicated bishops, priests, and those who formally adhere to the group). As Bishop Fellay said about the gas and fire. The gas was cut off in 1988 and the fire that now may continue will eventually go out or divide into many different little flames. Mark these words.
Joseph
You may be right, but I seriously doubt it. If the Church were in optimum or even near optimum health, that would definitely be the case, but if that were the case, the SSPX would have not come into existence.
If the Church continues on the path it's been on for the last many years, especially in America and Europe, the SSPX will only continue to grow.
And, with the Church reaching out to so many other groups, it will be very hard to convince the faithful that consistency is irrelevant.
I have a hard time distinguishing between the SSPX position and that of the SSPV, because I don't see how you can separate yourself from the Pope and not deny his validity.
That being said, I think the SSPX has influenced the direction the Vatican has taken, both past and present, because of their adherence to the Faith as it was practiced for many, many years, and because of other groups within the Church that hold a regular status, and the potential exodus of the faithful in these groups, should the Church stay its present course, i.e. instituting grab-bag staff positions, such as pastoral associates, bestowing upon them a status of quasi-priests in Dr. Schuller like robes, as they deliver heterodox homily after heterodox homily. In my view, this kind of activity puts the Church in a unique historical position, despite all the trials she faced in the past.
This dalliance with heterodoxy is not contained in small pockets here and there, it is widespread. Pope Benedict must feel as if he's walking a tightrope, but that is what happens when a ship begins to go off course, and it's not righted at the earliest possible time.
... You may find yourself eating humble pie in the near future (I trust this will not gag you too much) Just the same stick arround, who knows you may learn a thing or two.
Now don't forget to share with your friends. After all it is the Christian thing to do.
Hi Silver (hope all is well!), the part of me that loved it when Moe told Larry and Curly to pick two, likes the whole humble pie/gag thing too.
I second this. With a Bishop like Fellay leading the Society, I am filled with great hope. He has not compromised one bit. Do you all remember the doom and gloom before this meeting? How Fellay was going to sell the SSPX out? Didn't happen.
At the same time, he, a Bishop, went to Rome for a meeting with his (our) Pope. That's great. How are we going to regularize the SSPX unless there is communications? What is the plan? If we want to take back Rome, don't we have to engage them? Do so many doubt in the formation of Bishop Fellay, that we think he will sell out?
I am very hopeful. He is the perfect person to be leading the SSPX. _________________ Viva Cristo Rey!
Joined: 26 Jun 2004 Posts: 422 Location: somewhere in the Old South
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject:
Thanks.... I am feeling much better.
Clad you liked the humor too.
It is my SSPV is an outgrowth of former SSPX Priests but then I have been told the same is true of the Society of Saint Peter.
I used to have some sympathy for the SSPV and others of that POV until the transformation of Cardinal Ratzinger into Pope Benedict XVI. Their conduct only deepened my view that SSPX was on the right course. Now doubt they have problems (Satan never leaves an outpost undamaged if he can) but they will make peace with some Pope and I suspect sooner rather than later. I think it is possible this year and I say so because it has been 40 years. The whole thing reminds me of the Babylonian Captivity. There was a passage in the Old Testament where a Prophet was told to begin the work to restore the Faith. The Jews had made a mess of it and were paying the price. Even after their captivity they had not restored things. It took one prophet to get the word from Heaven to begin the effort.
If one adds the dates of VII to 70 years we get 2032-2035. I have noticed that Catholic Theology often notes repeating patterns in the Bible. The Catholic belief in Christology is very correct in my view and it seems to be in evidence in other matters. The history and event of the Bible seems to have repeating patterns like a Father teaching over and over again his young children the skills they need to learn to succeed and do well. This sort of patterns did not end when the Apostles died in my view. Much of Catholic History has some of the same sort of thing. For example the Protestant revolt reminds me of the action of Core in the Wilderness with Moses.
Back to my theory they years 2032-2035 has some significance, especially 2033. If my memory is right is that not the year Vatican II made the radical new position on other religions and Christian denominations. 2033 is also the exact number of years from the founding of the Seminary that began the start of SSPX that matches the number of years that Old Testament Prophet was given to restore the Faith while in Captivity.
And just to add a little more interest to the year 2033. It is 2000 years from the death and resurrection of our Lord and King. Consider also the biblical concept of a generation, which is 40 years. This makes 2033 50 generations of Faithful from the greatest event in the history of mankind. And the also consider that 50 years is the Old Testament of the Jubilee year. According to Levitican Law ever 50 years all who have fallen under slavery are to be given their freedom. Is it not a common metaphor in the Catholic Church to equate the bonds of sin to a type of slavery?
Please do not think I am prediction the year of our Lord's second coming. I actually wonder if this doesn't have more to do with Our Lady fulfilling her greatest moment and the Church as the Bride of our Lord. I say this because of the story of Esther. In the story of Esther you will read about the Jewish Holy day of Purim (a hugely important Holy day). It is the only Old Testament Holy Day that does not seem to have a Catholic equal. Easter is an easy one for most people but how many know that Christmas is the day the Light was born into the world while the Jewish prototype is the Festival of Lights?
The events in Saint John's Revelation and the events in the Book of Esther are very similar. It also has a very important role for a humble and modest Queen Esther, who is of high virtues and strong faith. Sound like anybody we know?
There is more relating to the prophecies of a holy one that do not fit Christ directly but just may fit Our Lady.
I have been mulling this over for nearly a year. I have no idea why I felt the urge to mention this now but I offer it up for all to comment upon.
JMJ
For love of the Immaculate Heart
Mark in the Old South _________________ BEWARE OF ERRORS OUT OF RUSSIA
Mark in the Old South
Joined: 26 Jun 2004 Posts: 422 Location: somewhere in the Old South
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:23 pm Post subject:
thetimman wrote:
ok, I'll bite: who's joseph?
Note the name tags. I am sure it isn't the one named Ruth. I can't quite make out the name of the two to the right or the left of Ruth. I just can't quite make out the names. I doubt it is the one to her left so that leaves just two other options. Do you have any guesses? _________________ BEWARE OF ERRORS OUT OF RUSSIA
Mark in the Old South
Goodbye, SSPX. You are all most arrogant and unchristian. It is sad when a self proclaimed, "Catholic Website" trashes people instead of exchange a civil and charitable debate. No wonder Joseph left, and that is why I left also.
The SSPX may hold on to the 'practices' of The Traditional Faith; but you do not have the exclusive rights to The Catholic Faith and you cannot justify your sacraments because your priests have no jurisdiction. It is a very hard rule, and I sympathize; but, no permission from a Boshop, no valid sacraments. SSPX lead their people into falsely thinking they are recieveing them,. I know that most Bishops are flawed, some have no holy regard for The TLM or The Traditional Faith, and some are downright rabid. I gve you these things as proven truths. But not all. And those who would remain as 'indulters' are trying hard to make the same thing happen as the SSPX = The restoration of the church.
Being rude to posters outside of your own 'select few buddies' is no way to evangelize. I have decided to leave this forum, I am sure to your delight. But, not before I made this last post. The[b] lack of charity here [/b]shows that, with the exception of a handful of good and kind Catholics who know how to conduct themselves in a truly Catholic manner, this forum is rabid and proves what has been said about the SSPX all along - the SSPX only wants to go their own way, because they really do not want to give up their own prideful autonomy, in the [i]disguise [/i]of holding out for a 'no compromise' to the n.o. hierarchy.
Have a nice day. I will leave with Joseph and others like him.
You set a fine Catholic example to the world of viewers, completely against your own moderator's mission statement and policies.
I leave you to yourselves. I will pray for you, and also pray for our church to be restored by The Will of God, and not by the arrogance of the SSPX. _________________ Caritas.
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
