| ||
| ||
| The authorities in Rome are trying their best to explain that relativism and syncretism will be avoided. However, this remains a great scandal for the Church! It is a direct attack against the first Commandment of God: “Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” In a spirit of reparation, I have requested our priests in the United States District, where possible, to publicly offer the Mass Pro Fidei Propagatione (For the Propagation of the Faith). I have also asked for exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, to be adored in a spirit of reparation for this public and grave offence. In some of our chapels where it may be more fruitful for the faithful, this day of reparation may be transferred to the following Saturday or Sunday. [please contact the nearest SSPX chapel for details] The fight for the defense of the Faith continues, especially against the rising ecumenism of our times. With my prayers and blessing, in the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr. Arnaud Rostand |
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
District Superior Announcement
Edit: This news is challenging. Father Schmidberger was also firm, but milder in his estimation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Why do you say that this news is challenging?
Partly because the Pope has already explained the situation in Assisi, not only through his subordinates, but he's addressed it directly. He's stated also that he wants to use this as a means to attack relativism, and promote the Dogma that there is No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church.
Assuming that he won't do what he's said he was going to do strikes me as ingratitude and presumption.
I usually support the SSPX and its leadership, including Bishop Williamson, but things like this strikes me as bad faith, especially when the Holy Father has kept so many promises to the Society already.
The simple fact that the Pope called a congress of world religions for any reason is bad enough. It gives a bad example, regardless of intent. I can't picture Pius XI condemning the fairly mild ecumenical gatherings of his time, but thinking Assisi III was ok because to good intentions or some decent statements made there. 'Not as bad' isn't the same as 'not bad.'
Nothing wrong objectively with this meeting.
Post a Comment