Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bishop Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X to Meet Pope August 29
SSPX e-mail ^ | 16 August 2005 | Bishop Williamson

Posted on 08/16/2005 8:50:57 AM PDT by Mershon

A FEW THOUGHTS for AUGUST, 2005 By Bishop Richard Williamson

In this year’s May-June issue of the French bi-monthly magazine “Sous la Bannière”, on page 7, there is a most interesting quotation attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. It reads as follows:

“A source in Austria, preferring to remain anonymous, assures us that Cardinal Ratzinger recently made the following admission to an Austrian bishop who is a friend of his: ‘I have two problems on my conscience: Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima. As to the latter, my hand was forced. As to the former, I failed’.”

Of course if the “source in Austria” prefers to remain anonymous, we have no means of verifying whether the Cardinal truly said these things about Archbishop Lefebvre and Fatima, but the quotation is at least true to life, so it is worth dwelling on for a few moments.

As for what the Cardinal says about Fatima, we suspected back in June of 2000, when the Vatican – with the Cardinal in the forefront – supposedly released the third Secret, that there was some trickery going on. Either Rome was still hiding the true Secret, the one kept in his room by Pius XII but never looked at, or Rome was revealing the true Secret but twisting its interpretation. Either way, we said to ourselves at that time, Rome was wanting to have done with Fatima, and we saw Cardinal Ratzinger playing a leading part in the manoeuvre. Now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal was indeed taking part in a manoeuvre. Who “forced his hand”? Was it John-Paul II? Some hidden power behind both Pope and Cardinal? God knows.

As for what the quotation says about Archbishop Lefebvre, there too, if the quotation is not true it is certainly true to life. In May of 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre was threatening to consecrate with or without Rome’s permission bishops for the Society of St. Pius X, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who represented the Holy See in the negotiations meant to head off the “break” that such consecrations would involve. We recall that the Cardinal almost “succeeded” on May 6 when Archbishop Lefebvre signed a draft agreement, but the Cardinal “failed” when the Archbishop after a sleepless night took his signature back on the following day. And now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal still sees the termination of those negotiations as a “failure”.

This confirmation is important as suggesting that the Cardinal will remain, now he is Pope, in the same frame of mind to deal with the Society of St. Pius X in the audience which this August 29 he is due to grant to Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor at the head of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay. In other words, it is highly likely both that the present Pope is sincerely convinced that the “break” between the Society and Rome must be brought to an end, and that he will give all the appearances of being of good will when he employs all possible means, including his long experience of Roman diplomacy and all the prestige of his now exalted rank, to bring the “break” to an end.

In fact, a Rome-SSPX agreement seems impossible. And of course if the Society rejoined Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it, and if the Pope “converted”, then instead of the gentle war now being waged on his right by Tradition, he would be faced with a savage war being waged on his left by the cabal of neo-modernists. Either way, the war goes on between the friends and the enemies of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But what is important here and now for Catholics who will be following with interest the up-coming meeting between Rome and the Society, is not to fall into any of the traps that the Devil will be setting for them.

Firstly, the fact that the Society is asking to be received in audience by the Holy Father does not mean that it is on the point of betraying. If there is no contact between Tradition and Rome, now will the truth of Tradition ever make itself heard in Rome?

Secondly, there being a contact does not mean that an agreement is possible. Let all the Catholics who dream of fitting together Catholic Tradition and the present neo-modernist authorities of the Church come back down to earth. Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth will one day re-unite, but nothing for the moment indicates that that day is tomorrow – or the day after!

Lastly – and this is the subtlest trap of them all – let nobody think that because the Pope is of good will, therefore he cannot be a neo-modernist, or that because he is a neo-modernist, therefore he cannot be of good will. The present crisis of the Church would be much less grave and would deceive far fewer people if the neo-modernists were obviously of ill will. It is characteristic of these last times that bad principles are so widespread that few people are aware of the fact, and many people do evil convinced that they are doing good. That is why the Cardinal’s quotation is true to life in which he says that his “failure” of 1988 weighs “on his conscience”.

Let us pray to the Mother of God for Benedict XVI to see, above all the need to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, and if we ourselves can see, let us pray to her that we too not go blind – “He who thinks he stands, let him take care not to fall”, says St. Paul (I Cor X, 12). The times are bad!


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; ecumenism; society; sspx; tradition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
Pray for a reconciliation and for 450 priests and their regularization, and march to Tradition within the Church.
1 posted on 08/16/2005 8:50:58 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; sandyeggo; Siobhan; Lady In Blue; NYer; american colleen; Pyro7480; livius; ...


2 posted on 08/16/2005 8:53:45 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Mershon
These people really are nuts.

But because they're nuts they can't be held fully responsible for their actions. What a world!

4 posted on 08/16/2005 9:14:02 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
I am of two minds on this post. On the one hand I am pleased by the meeting which can not hurt at this point, and may prove helpful. On the other hand I note, yet again, the pronounced mindset of the SSPX. This can be boiled down to several points. First, they continue to presume to set themselves up in judgment over the Pope. Secondly the tone of this letter clearly indicates that they have no real hope or any particularly urgent desire to restore themselves to full communion with the Holy See. And third we see the growing evidence of the effects of prolonged schism. The longer the schism remains, the more "normal" it appears in the minds of the schismatics. This has the attendant consequence of making it harder to restore communion. It is of course a long standing truism that no schismatic has ever recognized himself as such. And the longer the separation remains the more comfortable they become in their condition. In the end most schisms are a product of the sin of pride. I think this one is no exception. I once was associated with the SSPX. And although I have at times been harshly critical of their mindset on many points, I remain sympathetic to many of their concerns. The issues they have raised are often legitimate ones. It is deeply painful that they seem unable to grasp that by operating outside of the Church they greatly weaken their position, and strengthen their enemies.
5 posted on 08/16/2005 9:18:51 AM PDT by jec1ny (Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domine Qui fecit caelum et terram.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
On the premise this is a real quote from the Pope, lets look at the three points, and see where the SSPX stands.

Firstly, the fact that the Society is asking to be received in audience by the Holy Father does not mean that it is on the point of betraying. If there is no contact between Tradition and Rome, now will the truth of Tradition ever make itself heard in Rome?

False dichotomy, the notion that Rome is opposed to Tradition is false. While many things in the outward appearances have changes, the underlying dogma, and doctrine have not. Furthermore, the Tradition of Priests and Bishops having obedience to the See, and maintaining close and frequent contact with Rome seems to be discarded by the SSPX.

Secondly, there being a contact does not mean that an agreement is possible. Let all the Catholics who dream of fitting together Catholic Tradition and the present neo-modernist authorities of the Church come back down to earth. Catholic Authority and Catholic Truth will one day re-unite, but nothing for the moment indicates that that day is tomorrow – or the day after!

Once again the thesis is that Rome is a tool of Satan, and not the Church Christ founded. This is a Lutheran tradition.

Lastly – and this is the subtlest trap of them all – let nobody think that because the Pope is of good will, therefore he cannot be a neo-modernist, or that because he is a neo-modernist, therefore he cannot be of good will. The present crisis of the Church would be much less grave and would deceive far fewer people if the neo-modernists were obviously of ill will. It is characteristic of these last times that bad principles are so widespread that few people are aware of the fact, and many people do evil convinced that they are doing good. That is why the Cardinal’s quotation is true to life in which he says that his “failure” of 1988 weighs “on his conscience”.

That is a true statement, that not all people are entirely bad, the converse is true, not all the SSPX leadership is acting entirely of good will. People make little empires, and the worst thing that could happen for the SSPX Episcopacy is they would be brought back into the Catholic Church and forced to hold regular positions like every single other Bishop.

This tragic tale needs to come to an end. Many souls shall not return to Catholicism because of this break, and that should be on the mind of every Bishop and Priests who left with the SSPX. I would be pleased to see widespread Tridentine Mass, as it is hard to find Priest willing to start Mass in new locations.
6 posted on 08/16/2005 9:22:22 AM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Firstly, the fact that the Society is asking to be received in audience by the Holy Father does not mean that it is on the point of betraying. If there is no contact between Tradition and Rome, [h]ow will the truth of Tradition ever make itself heard in Rome?

With these kind of statements, one wonders whether Bishop Williamson could subscribe to the solemn profession of faith issued by Pope St. Hormisdas and confirmed by the Fathers of Constantinople IV and Vatican I.

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion." (Pastor Aeternus, 4.2)

One recalls the words of Cardinal Hoyos to Bishop Fellay: "today I am convinced that there are those in your ranks who no longer have the true faith in the authentic Tradition of the Church".

7 posted on 08/16/2005 9:36:08 AM PDT by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jec1ny
Williamson does not seem to be on the same sheet of music as Fellay.

If Fellay seeks and get official recognition from the Pontiff then the SSPX may split wide open.

Fellay needs to be mindful of the FSSP who had their balls cut off and handed back to them. On the flip side...the Bishop in Campos, Brazil has done well for himself and his flock.

With a new Pontiff....this is a total wildcard situation.

My opinion? The SSPX should get full recognition as a Religious Order on par with the Jesuits but the nasty backtalk needs to stop. Pope Benedict may just go way out on a limb on this one.

The Charismatics, Neo Catholics and liberals will be jumping out of buildings. At the height of their hysteria I'd love to see a major move toward re-union with the Orthodox. I want a new parish closer to my home...Greek Orthodox or a shiny new SSPX chapel will do...but the Charismatic proto Protestant bullcrap Masses around the corner from me are wearing thin.

8 posted on 08/16/2005 9:37:55 AM PDT by Pio (Vatican II, thy name is Modernism, Madness and Death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

This should be interesting to watch as it unfolds. I think Pope Benedict XVI will tell them to stop being schismatics.


9 posted on 08/16/2005 9:38:24 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

It's my understanding that Rome is holding out her hand and all that the SSPX has to do is grasp it. I pray that they do.


10 posted on 08/16/2005 9:44:42 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Mershon

I pray that the reconcilliation does take place, but only if the Vatican restores tradition and abides by all past church teachings and throws out this modernistic agenda and restores the TLM as the so called "Norm" and makes those who want to attend the NO mass the "indult" and because they want to stay "in communion" make them drive the 20 miles every Sunday and make them beg like dogs for a church here or there for an indult

In my opinion it is the church and Ratzinger who have lost all credibility. How can an astute scholar of history as he actually warm up to the Protestant Mass that was drafted by Protestants and a Mason?


12 posted on 08/16/2005 9:57:15 AM PDT by BulldogCatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

Williamson has it backwards, of course. HE and the SSPX bishops are the excommunicated schismatics, NOT Pope Benedict XVI.

His attitude is fully in keeping with that expressed by the SSPX's "Secretary General" in "Circular Letters" which were NOT supposed to be seen "outside the Society" (like their monkeying around with annulments a few years back).

Read these and ask yourself if this is the attitude one needs to have when one is seeking reconciliation with the successor of the Supreme Pontiff who was personally and specifially disobeyed and with the Church from whom one went into schism by bestowing and receiving illicit episcopal consecration.

The Circular Letters:

Circular Letter No. 2005-04 (excerpt):
After the death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Cardinal Ratzinger, who took the name of Benedict XVI, we are in expectation of what this pontificate will be. Obviously, Cardinal Ratzinger's past is scarcely encouraging and one might indeed well be fearful. Nevertheless, one might equally entertain some hope, however faint, for the liturgy should the Pope have the courage of the convictions he expressed as a private author in his different publications over the last few years. One of the first, keenly awaited gestures which should give us a fairly significant indication will be his nomination for the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

It seems that, after a moment of panic, the hard-liners have begun to recuperate their position and to encircle the new pope so as to keep a free hand to continue to spread in the Church deleterious seeds. As the Anglo-Saxons say: "Wait and see . . . "

Fr. Arnaud Selegny

Circular Letter 2005-05EX

Dear Confreres,
The election of Pope Benedict XVI after the death of John Paul II is an event that must hold the attention of the Society and its superiors, even though significant changes from the course described by the preceding pontificate probably cannot be expected. The Pope's recent authorization to open the cause of beatification of his predecessor, waiving the five-year period that is supposed to elapse first, can scarcely inspire confidence.

Nevertheless, as our beloved and venerated founder Archbishop Lefebvre did upon the election of Pope John Paul II, it seems useful and necessary to contact the new pope to request an audience. This is Bishop Fellay's intention, determined in consultation with his council, and which he desires to make known to you by this letter.

Yet, so that this intention may be rightly understood, I have been charged with explaining to you his reasoning as regards this request for an audience. What is its purpose? Above all, it is a matter of making the presence of Tradition felt at Rome, of bearing witness to what we are so that the voice of Tradition may be heard at the heart of Christendom, even if we must not have any illusions about the kind of echo it will encounter. It is an episode in the combat of the faith that we are waging, and which must necessarily also be waged in Rome.

This audience will equally be the occasion to solemnly reiterate in a personal, direct manner, the call for the restoration of the Tridentine Rite of Mass in all its rights, so that the ostracism of which it is the object may cease. It will be the occasion to remind the Pope that Cardinal Ratzinger belonged to the Commission of nine Cardinals that unanimously judged in 1986 that no one could prevent a priest from celebrating this Mass. If there was unanimity, then necessarily he must have voted thus.

Will he be responsive to this argument? It is hard to say, but it is our duty to remind him of it, and to go and proclaim the inalienable right of this rite before the distant successor of St. Pius V.

Bishop Fellay considers it very important to inform you at the outset of this initiative so that it can proceed in the light of day, and so that al the members of the Society can understand its scope and meaning. Please note well that there is no intention at this time of resuming "negotiations" of any kind.

You are asked to please inform the members of the Society entrusted to your solicitude, so that all may know the reasons for this request of an audience and its goal. On the other hand, this letter is not supposed to be disclosed outside the Society, even if experience has taught us that this type of news rarely remains "intra muros" . . .

Confiding this step to Popes St. Pius V and St. Pius X, I assure you, dear Confreres, of my prayers to the united Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

+Fr. Arnaud Selegny
Secretary General.

Source: PRIESTS' BULLETIN, June 2005, #174, pp 5-7


13 posted on 08/16/2005 10:13:00 AM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

Judge not, lest ye be judged. I think the current Pope is much closer to the mindset of Bishop Fellay than you might think. Unless of course, you believe Pope Benedict XVI is nuts.

Bishop Williamson does not speak for the entire SSPX. And part of this is maneuvering and posturing.

The Russian Orthodox patriarch has said much worse things over the years, and we are on "friendly" ecumenical terms with them.


14 posted on 08/16/2005 10:34:59 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

and the worst thing that could happen for the SSPX Episcopacy is they would be brought back into the Catholic Church and forced to hold regular positions like every single other Bishop.


And it is a good thing that you are not the Pope. I'm certain Pope Benedict XVI will do what he believes is the right thing to do. Then those of you who hate the SSPX ,and are more holy and more Catholic than the SSPX adherents (which I am not one), will be on firm ground doing nothing but grasping at straws and being uncharitable.


15 posted on 08/16/2005 10:37:23 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Or the words of Cardinal Hoyos to Bishop Fellay to him and two of the other bishops after their initial meeting:

"I find no heretical doctrines nor schismatic attitudes among you."

So, which is it?


16 posted on 08/16/2005 10:38:53 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Bishop Williamson does not speak for the entire SSPX. And part of this is maneuvering and posturing.

So you admit that Williamson, at least, is off his rocker?

17 posted on 08/16/2005 10:39:11 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: seamole

Indeed. "He must increase. I must decrease." Indeed. Great spiritual insight.

But its relevance to this post is what?


18 posted on 08/16/2005 10:40:28 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan; All

Faith, HOPE and charity. And the greatest of these is...

By the way, the more I read these and other posts from NeoCon Catholics, the more I realize they have completely ignored the entire thrust of the Second Vatican Council. Read and re-read the document on ecumenism. And try applying it to the situation with the SSPX.

A deep, glaring spotlight might be cast upon the foreheads of those who are so quick to "defend" the Pope and perform apologetics in a manner that is contradictory to the Second Vatican Council itself.

Many of you are the examples of how the Second Vatican Council's key teachings (especially those of JPII) have not been incorporated into the life of the Church.

With that being said, simple respect and Christian charity requires you to a higher standard than you show in this forum.


19 posted on 08/16/2005 10:47:21 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Or the words of Cardinal Hoyos to Bishop Fellay to him and two of the other bishops after their initial meeting:

Was Bishop Williamson one of the other bishops?

PS: What is the source of that quote? I can't find it, unless you are referring to this statement from his Letter to Bishop Fellay: "After these events, in noting your good will and based on the fact that your Fraternity certainly was not spreading any heretical doctrine and did not maintain schismatic attitudes, I had dared you to propose, without consulting anyone first, to set a possible date for reintegration."

20 posted on 08/16/2005 10:48:42 AM PDT by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Then those of you who hate the SSPX ,and are more holy and more Catholic than the SSPX adherents (which I am not one), will be on firm ground doing nothing but grasping at straws and being uncharitable.

Thats not true. I can look at events, and look at the actions of the SSPX, the writings and make a conclusion. Williamson is probably the most bizarre; Fellay has a lot more sense, and I bet any upcoming split will involve those two.

Do I want the SSPX regularized? Absolutely. Nobody wins when people are taking off to a schismatic sect. What I think is just as important is that Papal Authority is respected. Without real obedience to the See, and to Catholicism's roots in the Pope, there is no healing of this unfortunate separation.

Mershon, I never accused you of being in the SSPX, but these kinds of stories from Williamson are almost always inflammatory because they are founded in his own fantasy world, peppered with Papal plots, and secret informants...
21 posted on 08/16/2005 10:50:34 AM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

If Rome can allow China to appoint "Bishops" and hopes to reconcile these Communist Chinese "Bishops" of the Communist Patriotic Church, what would impede Rome with SSPX?


22 posted on 08/16/2005 10:54:51 AM PDT by BobCNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobCNY
what would impede Rome with SSPX?

I think the only real impediment is SSPX refusing communion. As you can see from this letter there is at least a major segment that is adamantly against even DISCUSSING reunion with Rome.

Schism for the sake of schism.

23 posted on 08/16/2005 11:04:44 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
I can't find it

Oh, here it is, from the same Letter:

You yourself, dear Mgr. Fellay, after having heard from several members of the Fraternity and having met your Council, sent to me the secretary of the Society of St. Pius X, Don Selegny, accompanied by Don Simoulin, with the mission of presenting several questions concerning the formulas of an eventual reintegration. The secretary, after having heard my responses articulated to his numerous questions, expressed himself in an extremely harsh manner about the present rite of the Holy Mass, as the faithful united to the Vicar of Christ and their Bishops adhere to, in claiming that this rite was evil; he informed me moreover of having received from you a mandate to suspend the dialogues, if two prior conditions were not granted: to lift the excommunication and to permit all Catholic priests to celebrate according to the rite of St. Pius V.

I should say that I was left saddened and perplexed, because this development was not in line with the climate of trust, of cordial fraternity and reciprocal respect which, until then, had sustained and animated our relations.

Since the beginning, starting out from a sound, fundamental position, a hope was kept alive of being able to put an end to the irregular situation in which your Fraternity finds itself; even more so because I noted neither the scent of heresy nor the will to incur a formal schism on your part, but only the desire to contribute to the good of the universal Church, considering that the specific charism of the Society of St. Pius X toward Tradition, in the current context, could only benefit the path of the Church.

It was absolutely not a matter of a trap, set up to silence you or destroy your movement, and a base strategy with hidden intentions or with unconfessed aims was never followed, as certain among you have written to the contrary.

I can say that on the part of the Holy See and of all people involved in this difficult but promising episode for the unity of the Church, we never lacked the honest desire to see the Society of St. Pius X reconciled with the See of Peter so that, with its particular charism of service to Tradition, it could contribute to the missionary work of the new evangelization.

Also, although I did not doubt the disposition of Your Excellency to continue our dialogue toward the desired end, I am surprised at the declarations you and other members of the Society of St. Pius X have made on this subject.

It seems to me in fact that your declarations, which appear to cast doubt on the sincerity of the Holy See, are not useful in making our common efforts thrive, and have created a less favorable climate and cast doubt on the Society of St. Pius X’s understanding of this important matter.

Permit me, therefore, to quote some of your statements, enumerating several of these contradictory attitudes and assertions in which your Fraternity seems to be risking itself, which create perplexity and are in contradiction to the Tradition of the Church. Besides, how could I not confront these painful points, if they contained questions that invite at least some explanation?


24 posted on 08/16/2005 11:06:46 AM PDT by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

Sometimes I think yes. Sometimes I think it is his British disposition coming out and that he is merely posturing. Can't often tell from his writings.

He is not off his rocker near as much as 90% of the current U.S. Episcopate. Let's start with Mahony, Hubbard, Brown, etc.

Come on. Where is the real crisis?


25 posted on 08/16/2005 11:12:04 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

"Was Bishop Williamson one of the other bishops?"

I do not believe that Bishop Williamson was in attendance. All the rest were, as far as I recall.

The entire quote you gave is the one I attempted to paraphrase.


26 posted on 08/16/2005 11:13:30 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

"Schism for the sake of schism."

Yet post No. 24 directly below yours, from Cardinal Hoyos, specifically states otherwise. Rash judgment on your part? Or a simple misunderstanding that you would wish to correct?

I'm confused. Cardinal Hoyos says the opposite of you, and he met the bishops.


27 posted on 08/16/2005 11:16:29 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

Yes, CHARITY, by all means. But doesn't the motto of some Lefebvrian bishop or other (maybe Lefebvre's, I can't recall) say something about "truth in charity?

At any rate, speaking of charity: your response was all personal attack (me and the neo-cons, I guess).

Instead: How about dealing with the texts of the Circular Letters I posted?

You know, when you self-proclaimed Guardians of Tradition go off onto a personal rant, that's usually a sign that you've run out of ammo.

So: point blank question 1: do those Circular Letters strike you as duplicitous?

2. On the SSPX USA website, the banner proclaims "filial devotion and loyalty" to Pope Benedict XVI. Do those letters - which actually state NOT FOR GENERAL PUBLICATION - sould filial, devoted or loyal to you?

Leave my alleged lack of charity out of your response and just let us know what you think of the SSPX's honesty and docility before the Vicar of Christ on earth, our Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI.


28 posted on 08/16/2005 11:17:10 AM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
"The Russian Orthodox patriarch has said much worse things over the years, and we are on "friendly" ecumenical terms with them."

I fear your definition of "friendly" and mine are pretty different. The Russian Orthodox have been ice cold in their responses to us.
29 posted on 08/16/2005 11:17:27 AM PDT by jec1ny (Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domine Qui fecit caelum et terram.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Oh I don't consider a fringe group of schismatics a crisis.

On the other hand the Mahony elements within the US church are by nature, while insidious, effete pansies who will continue to give way in the face of robust orthodoxy.

I'm not a big one for crises.

30 posted on 08/16/2005 11:18:34 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Yet post No. 24 directly below yours, from Cardinal Hoyos, specifically states otherwise.

My reading of the Hoyos letter is that he says the Society started without the intention of schism but began to go off the rails on a crazy train, if you will excuse the Ozzy reference.

31 posted on 08/16/2005 11:22:28 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan

"You know, when you self-proclaimed Guardians of Tradition go off onto a personal rant, that's usually a sign that you've run out of ammo."

I claim no such title. I profess the Credo of the People of God by Pope Paul VI, the Athanasian Creed, the apostles' creed, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and the Credo of the Council of Trent. How about you?

"So: point blank question 1: do those Circular Letters strike you as duplicitous?"

No. Not at all. They were internal matters for priests of the SSPX, which you chose to violate and make public. Who is the duplicitous one? What are you? An investigative reporter?

"2. On the SSPX USA website, the banner proclaims "filial devotion and loyalty" to Pope Benedict XVI. Do those letters - which actually state NOT FOR GENERAL PUBLICATION - sould filial, devoted or loyal to you?"

Yes. They do. Have you ever read anything written by many priests and bishops in the Novus Ordo who are allegedly in "full communion" with Rome. Perhaps it is time to recognize the child-like Faith does not mean naivete about how things really work in the Church. It appears to me they are concerned about being allowed to stay true to Tradition. Similar to the Orthodox. Have you ever read the Second Vatican Council document on ecumenism?

"Leave my alleged lack of charity out of your response and just let us know what you think of the SSPX's honesty and docility before the Vicar of Christ on earth, our Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI."

I think this initial meeting instigated by Bishop Fellay, and accepted by Pope Benedict XVI is a wonderful sign. I find nothiner in the letters you post other than caution to be given to some of the more extreme elements within the SSPX. It was an internal letter, remember, that you chose to make public.



32 posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:38 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: JohnnyZ

"I'm not a big one for crises."

Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has said numerous times (as well as Pope John Paul II), that we are in the midst of a crisis. He puts much of the blame on the collapse of the liturgy.

Perhaps you should re-align your thinking more closely and docilely with that of our Holy Father.


34 posted on 08/16/2005 11:25:16 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

Lets see, who is actually hereticial, SSPX or the Post Vatican II church:

A "heretic" is defined in Canon 1325 as: "Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith".

The argument that a laymen cannot state his firm conviction that a cleric of whatever rank is a heretic is not true at all either, as St Thomas taught that it is our responsiblity to do such.

Canon 1935 state:
"Any member of the faithful may at all times denounce the offence of another, and the obligation of denouncing another becomes urgent... when one is obliged to do so in virtue of the natural law where there is danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil." Clearly such is the case today when many through ignorance of the Faith give their allegiance to false shepherds.

Does the following below fall under heresy as defined above, leading the faithful astray, or do you really think that Lefebvre is a heretic because he happened to consecrate some Bishops as he wanted to practice the faith as handed down and not the "new brand" proposed by Vatican II. Who has caused more harm to Catholicsm, Lefebvre or the Post Vatican II Popes who are actually heretics straight off as defined by Pope Pius X (Oath against Modernism) as well as their refusal to take the Papal Oath, which if they were to take would put them in direct heresy or at least apostasy, which is a clear break from Orthodoxy and Traditional teaching

As Bishop Karol Wojtyla, of Crakow:
1. He was a student of the heretical existentialist Jacques Maritain.
2. He gutted the schema on Communism at Vatican II.
3. He allowed Protestant Evangelist Billy Graham speak at his cathedral.
As Pope John Paul II:
1. On May 4, 1980, he presided from a straw hut over an ordination ceremony and native Mass of people undulating to the rhythm of tomtoms, accompanied by accordians and guitars.
2. In February 1982, he presided over a "dance" Mass in Libreville.
3. On December 11, 1983, he preached in a Lutheran church at Rome.
4. On May 8, 1984, he presided over a Mass in Papua-New Guinea at which male and female dancers, nude from the waist up, danced; an aboriginal woman, also nude from the waist up, read the Epistle.
5. In September 1984, he presided over a Mass in Canada at which a pagan Indian chief invoked the Great Spirit and presented the pope at the Offertory with an eagle feather dipped in blood.
6. In 1985, he told 50,000 Moslems in Morocco: "We and you believe in the same God, the one God and the only God."
7. In August 1985, he presided over "dance" Masses in Cameroon and Garoua.
8. On August 8, 1985, he visited Togo and prayed in a "Sacred Forest" consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists.
9. In 1986, he presided over a Mass in Fiji at which the thurifer was an aboriginal dressed only in a loin-cloth; he is said to have witnessed there a pagan animal sacrifice.
10. In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the "Tilac," the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay.
11. On June 24, 1986, he sat with Grand Rabbi Elio Toaff in the sanctuary of the Jewish synagogue at Rome and prayed for the coming of the Messias.
12. On October 27, 1986, he participated in an ecumenical prayer meeting at Assisi, Italy, during which an image of Buddha was placed on top of the tabernacle. He again brought together Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders in Assisi on January 9-10, 1993, to pray for an end to the war with the Mohammedan Bosnians, and on January 24, 2002, for yet another "ecumenical prayer meeting" for "peace" with the Mohammedan terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. This time the leaders included not just the usual Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews, but also leaders of "Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Jianism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and followers of Tenrikyo and African tribal religions." (Associated Press)
13. On February 4, 1993, he engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo.
14. In 1994, he smeared the pitch from a native tree on his face instead of incensing the altar during a beatification ceremony in Australia.
15. In 1995, he approved the building of the first Mohammedan minaret in Rome.
16. On April 6, 1997, he recited the Credo without the Filioque on the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the Constantinople I Council and on ecumenical occasions. (Eastern Catholic Life)
17. In 1998, he gave communion, at a private Mass in the Vatican, to the late Rev. Sheila Brown, who had only shortly before been ordained an Anglican priestess and who, at that Mass, wore her "Roman" collar.
18. On November 23, 1998, he shared the altar of St. Peter's with bare-chested, bare-footed tribesmen from Oceania holding spears, "searching for new impulses." (Associated Press)
19. In 1999, he gave communion to several Lutheran bishops who were his guests during a mass in the pope's private chapel in the Vatican. (London Tablet)
20. On June 1, 1999, he end of an audience, he bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Koran, presented to him by a delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqui television. (June 1, 1999, Catholic News Service)
21. On January 18, 2000, he allowed Rev. George Carey, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Athanasius to participate in their official capacities at the opening of the Holy Door.


35 posted on 08/16/2005 11:43:29 AM PDT by BulldogCatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mershon
Yes, yes, you're a cute little bugger you!

There are always dozens of crises ongoing. Millions of crises large and small. The world can be seen as a perpetual crisis, or series of crises. One might say that the greatest crisis was resolved in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Instead of crisis, crisis everywhere I choose to see crises as the natural consequence of our fallen world, and thus normative (in a disordered sense) rather than extraordinary.

Regarding the liturgy, "abuse crisis", etc, I believe the tipping point has come and gone.

36 posted on 08/16/2005 11:44:39 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: BulldogCatholic

38 posted on 08/16/2005 11:52:05 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BulldogCatholic

A "heretic" is defined in Canon 1325 as: "Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith".

None of the things you have listed can be considered an obstinate denial of the Faith. And if you have read ANY of my posts, you would realize I have argued that, as far as I know, the word "heretic" has never been used by the Vatican, any Pope, nor Vatican dicastery, against Archbishop Lefebvre.

However, your posting of these infringements of prudence (in your opinion) could be seen as giving scandal to those weaker in the Faith. To give scandal purposely is considered grave matter, and thus potentially a mortal sin. I have spent much time defending Archbishop Lefebvre against unreasonable attacks, but I am not ever going to condone ordaining bishops against the express will of the Holy Father.

For that, you may view me as an enemy, but you may want to read on what is doctrine, vs. discipline, vs. dogma, etc., before you go around accusing the former Holy Father of heresy.

If he was an obstinate heretic, that makes you a sede, NOT an SSPX adherent.


39 posted on 08/16/2005 11:57:53 AM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole

I will pray for the return of all heretics, schismatics and infidels to the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which, neither holiness nor salvation can be found.

Christian unity exists as one of the four marks of the Church, as "one" as the Baltimore Catechism states clearly. Therefore, we must pray for the "return to the fold" to full, ecclesial and canonical communion for all those who, while being perhaps in the body of the Church, are not yet, in the heart of the Church.

We must pray for converion to full membership in the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, as Pope Pius XII said, "outside of which, neither holiness nor salvation can be found."


41 posted on 08/16/2005 12:07:20 PM PDT by Mershon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TaxachusettsMan
Please note well that there is no intention at this time of resuming "negotiations" of any kind.

So what would Bishop Fellay's reaction be if the Pope simply handed him some papers "here are your and the others episcopal and priestly faculties for a Personal Apostolic Administration - go and do the work of the Lord" with no strings attached?

42 posted on 08/16/2005 12:22:50 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BulldogCatholic
Re 35: I don't believe anyone has accused SSPX of being heretical. As critical of them as I have been I see them as plainly schismatic not heretical. I know of no one who has ever made a credible charge of heresy against SSPX. With regards your litany of charges against the late pontiff, that vast majority of those do not constitute anything more serious that poor taste. Admittedly, a few are cause for concern. But the only one that could really come close to a formal statement of heresy would be your # 6. And that may have been the result of an excess of enthusiasm. If we are all to be burned at the stake every time we state something regarding the faith that is false either through ignorance or an ill advised enthusiasm then there will be a lot of human torches. This does not however excuse his comments. I think JP II was often scandalously casual in his obligation to defend the truth of the Catholic Faith in relation to other confessions. But I simply do not see that as rising to formal heresy. Most of your litany of alleged sins do not even come close to heresy, and in my opinion none actually meet the definition. "Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the Divine and Catholic Faith".

Finally I would also point out that the Pontiff is according to canon law the supreme authority in the Church. He is as such not subject to the judgments of others.
43 posted on 08/16/2005 12:28:14 PM PDT by jec1ny (Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domine Qui fecit caelum et terram.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Hermann the Cherusker

It may satisfy some. Who knows but the SSPX.


45 posted on 08/16/2005 12:53:18 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BulldogCatholic
Stealing without attribution again? Ever hear that stealing some else's work without attribution is a mortal sin?

I mentioned this before in order to warn you about good posting manners, here and at other reputable places. Looks like you didn't heed the warning.

The second half of your post was lifted from:
http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0202.htm

This was posted without any form of attribution.

Most of these were debunked before. Some were amazing exaggerations.
46 posted on 08/16/2005 1:09:06 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Now comes the quotation from Austria confirming that the Cardinal was indeed taking part in a manoeuvre. Who “forced his hand”? Was it John-Paul II? Some hidden power behind both Pope and Cardinal? God knows.

* I heard from a friend the forcing was done by a current Bishop who initially was a Nun. The Nun had a sex change operation in 1964, paid for by a Mason who lives in Transylvania. His name is Vlad the impecunious. I know, I know. That is what makes this whole things so sinister. How could He have paid for the operation? I suspect Roger Mahoney is behind the whole thing. (He sold Fatima Tours short early in 1999) In any event, the nun/woman now Bishop/Man was befriended by Fr. Moderator of Traditio fame and "Fr." put him in touch with a Thucite..and the rest is history.

What I just said is just as reasonable this psychosis is based upon.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Ratzinger lied his butt off on Fatima. Oh, what? You say Sr. Lucy confirmed everything putout by the CDF? Well, who can trust her? She went to the N.O. Liturgy.

And yes, they are nuts. Schism leads to madness. I was laughing when I read the stuff about Rome and Tradition, Tradition is represented by a schism don't you know :)

One can only laugh at such arrogant presumption even as one is saddened by the realization of what might happen to the delusional folks when they die EENS.

47 posted on 08/16/2005 1:43:40 PM PDT by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

The first half of the stipulated quotation, the half about Fatima, by itself renders the quotation attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger highly doubtful--it dovetails just too nicely and neatly with the fringe Fatima crowd to be credible. Thus I wouldn't take anything the article says seriously--it has all the earmarks of urban legend created to further polemics.


48 posted on 08/16/2005 1:48:02 PM PDT by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

I did not choose to make those letters public. They were posted elsewhere on the Internet for all to see. I simply posted them here. (A little venial sin of rash judgment for your next Confession!) Anyhow, isn't secrecy the surest sign of a cult?

I love the way you Lefebvrians twist and turn things. Fellay did not "instigate a meeting" which the Pope "accepted".

Please, remember who is the excommunicated schismatic here - it's Fellay.

Fellay humbly (well, insofar as any Lefebvrian is capable of humility!) requested an audience, which the Holy Father graciously (after the insulting Circular Letters, that's being VERY gracious indeed) granted to him.

And we'll pray.

But read everything to come out of the SSPX - and that's a lot of reading, since it's coming out of both sides of their mouths! - and it's pretty clear: like their arrogant and disobedient master, Marcel, having been their own Popes for this long, it is very unlikely that they are about to go back to being obedient bishops of Christ's one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church!


49 posted on 08/16/2005 1:53:24 PM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mershon

I did not choose to make those letters public. They were posted elsewhere on the Internet for all to see. I simply posted them here. (A little venial sin of rash judgment for your next Confession!) Anyhow, isn't secrecy the surest sign of a cult?

I love the way you Lefebvrians twist and turn things. Fellay did not "instigate a meeting" which the Pope "accepted".

Please, remember who is the excommunicated schismatic here - it's Fellay.

Fellay humbly (well, insofar as any Lefebvrian is capable of humility!) requested an audience, which the Holy Father graciously (after the insulting Circular Letters, that's being VERY gracious indeed) granted to him.

And we'll pray.

But read everything to come out of the SSPX - and that's a lot of reading, since it's coming out of both sides of their mouths! - and it's pretty clear: like their arrogant and disobedient master, Marcel, having been their own Popes for this long, it is very unlikely that they are about to go back to being obedient bishops of Christ's one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church!


50 posted on 08/16/2005 1:53:32 PM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson