Edit: As reported by Rorate, and the "Resistance" among other, there will be a meeting between Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Muller. Since then we found this update by Katholisches:
[Update 17:00] The meeting between Cardinal and Bishop Fellay Müller has now been confirmed by Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi. It has already been reported by Vatican Radio. Curiously, the message category was assigned "ecumenism" on the website of the Vatican radio station.
27 comments:
But bishop Fellay has already categorised pope Francis as a modernist.
One can therefore only assume that in meeting Card. Muller , the popes enforcer of doctrine, that bishop Fellay will be signing up to all the principles of modernism.
Begging the question.
What is the point of any meeting when it is clear Fellay will always reject the reforms of Vat 2 and Pope Francis intends to intensify them?
They both travel in opposite directions .
I try not to lay claim to things I don't understand.
It will keep Muller from focusing on the Synod AND hopefully silence 'the traditionalists' or induce them to go ALONG W/SACRAMENTS FOR PERVERTED PEDOPHILES for a personal prelature (!!!!) just like the fornicating, baby murdering, divorced "catholics" will go along so that their children and grand children can get the 'sacraments' on the odd occasions they feel like going to mass (like the married Buddhist lesbian who feels entitled to communion at her mother's funeral).
What, s to understand?
The positions of all parties have been clearly articulated.
Bishop Fellay has defined the Francis papacy as quintessentially modernistic.
Pope Francis has defined his programme as quintessentially progressive in a manner that exceeds
grossest excess,s of Vat. 2.
To expect some comprise between such polar opposites is wishful thinking in the extreme.
Nothing will come of these meetings other than the usual hand wringing and inconclusiveness that fosters dissatisfaction .
Presumption.
How's that inarticulate hysteria thing working out?
Sign your responses and capitalize the "C" in Catholic. Also, learn to use commas.
Do you want comment or perfect grammar?
signed :John
Bishop Fellay really should be warned from the previous debacle with Pope Benedict XVI that each time he attempts to reconcile with Rome, it is The Society which exposes itself to internal dissension and ultimate defections of its faithful Catholic community.
"And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:15) The post-conciliar paradigm has a protestant ecumenical liberal modernist foundation with matching liturgical rite while the pre-conciliar model is based on Sacred Tradition and authoritative interpretation of Holy Scripture. The Rome that Fellay negotiates with is the modernist one which Archbishop Lefebvre refused any deal with. "Eternal Rome" has boundaries that no longer concur with the liberal relativist meaninglessness. This is a reality that Bishop Fellay continually overlooks as he places The Confraternity in danger once again
Full name and title please, otherwise, I will delete every single post you make.
Benedict no longer had control of things when +Fellay backed out if the last deal.
He was prepared to sign a document that gave them more or less complete freedom, and what he was expected to sign was something out of the 70s. As soon as Vatileaks hit, everything changed.
Recently in Australia H.E. Bishop Fellay told the faithful that he goes to Rome when called because of the power that one good action from the Holy Father can have for the whole Church. Surely this is practising heroic charity, when all agree that the chances are very slim for this to happen. He made it plain that he reiterates his position of non acceptance of V2 etc before any meetings begin. Archbishop Lefevbre pray for us.
On the contrary Tancred - read the wording of the SP - no acceptance of the validity of NO means no right to the Latin Mass (which is a contradiction of the Pian perpetual right in Quo Primum) - Unlike, the astute Lefebvre, Fellay misinterpreted the mind-set of Benedict XVI. he is a liberal modernist and not a traditionalist in any sense of the term. Indeed, you have stated it yourself in liberal terminology ie "more or less" freedom. Apart from his own catastrophic "negotiations' with Benedict XVI last time costing over 100 Society priests the Institute of the Good Shepherd makes another good lesson for Bishop Fellay to learn about trying to make deals with Fr-cum-cardinal-cum-papa-Ratzinger. Ultimately, there is no freedom for traditionalists and your own pages demonstrate this time and again. This pope is hell bent on destroying tradition, while his predecessor was determined to rein it in once and for all and hybridise it. There is the truth about liberal modernist freedom. The Franciscans are finding this out too at present. The SP is toothless and it was meant to be. It was bait to ensnare naive neo-conservatives into mistaking a few dalmatics and communion on the tongue for Sacred Tradition. A real traditional Roman Catholic without personal ambitions would have the discernment to know and understand that you cannot make a deal with liberal modernists because they keep shifting the benchmarks in their addiction to change and perpetual modernisation.
The last series of visits cost him over 100 Society priests. Sometimes pride can also be a handicap. Know thine enemy. Pope St Pius X has admonished us - it is the liberal modernists. Prayer, penance and sacrifice would be more effective. Our Blessed Lady has repeated this as the remedy. Liberals see visits as an opportunity to undermine and make media capital to weaken the unity of their just critics. Bishop Fellay is wasting his time on ambiguous public actions that serve little purpose other than to create further doubts about his own personal intentions.
Delete
Not to mention sarcasm, Tancred. If you want to be a Christian, help her elucidate her thinking.
I have never forgotten what the great Archbishop Lefebvre stated clearly in an interview with Fideliter in 1989 when he was questioned about signs of benevolence towards Tradition by modernist Rome.
"There are plenty of signs showing us that what you are talking about is simply exceptional and temporary… So I do not think it is opportune to try contacting Rome, I think we must still wait. Wait, unfortunately, for the situation to get still worse on their side. But up till now, they do not want to recognize the fact… That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of the conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves into the hands of those professing these errors.'
In fact, since he expressed these warnings the situation has become far worse.
It is clear LEON G that you are not permitted to seriously disagree with Tancred.
Doing so will always result in your comment being deleted.
This is a pity because arbitrary censorship of the kind exercised by Tancred diminishes interest with regard to the topics and their coverage being broadly discussed .
I have been a frequenter and contributor to this site for some time but this level of censorship is slowly making me decide to stay away .
Signed : John Lordship.
Definitely not Anonymous whoever you are. I deleted this myself because I had made a spelling error. Tancred is a fair-minded, mature person who is in my opinion doing Roman Catholicism a great service managing an open blog site. I would agree with him when he removes comments with ad hominem insults and foul language.
Look at that charade of a site Fr Z or the pathetic insipid NO sites that pump out protestant idiocies day after day. This site tackles issues and gives air to a wide range of opinions.
The majority of Resistance priests don't pray for pope Francis in the Canon, especially in South America. The crypto-sedevacantists leaving the FSSPX is a good thing. Bishop Williamson already caused enough damage to the FSSPX, as a professor he'd trail off topic and start talking about the JFK assassination and other conspiracy theories. When he visited chapels he'd start talking about holographic airplanes flying into the World Trade Center. He's a holocaust denier (saying thousands died) even though historians like David Irving (a holocaust skeptic) affirm millions died and that there was a systemic massacre carried out by Himmler and Heydrich. The cult of personality surrounding Bishop Williamson is toxic and uncharitable to the bone. And let's not forget that one Resistance priest who said Benedict XVI sacrificed children to Satan.
Nothing will come out of these meetings, obviously, but the Church is still the Church. Holy Mother Church is still our mother, and even though she may act like an abusive alcoholic, we her children still have the moral duty to speak with her when she requests our presence. Last time I checked Bishop Fellay wasn't a schismatic sedevacantist, this means he is obliged to be charitable towards the hierarchy when they request dialogue.
Post a Comment