SSPX Info, updates and interviews

[ImmaculataFides]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

Truelight, I don't find him vague in this video. However, a couple of times there is a cut in the video that disrupts his line of thought. I would very much prefer to see an unedited video.

Here's a comment from Rorate Caeli. I found it interesting!

Originally Posted by Bill

This is a disturbing video, assuming it has not been edited dishonestly. I have seen Bishop Fellay speak many times (on video), and this is a quite different Bishop Fellay.

H.E. begins by saying that it is wrong to think of SSPX vs Rome. He, himself, has talked in those terms many times. He then talks (very vaguely) about the current crisis in the Church, but does not use the word "crisis" or the word "Modernism." In fact, it sounds like he is embracing the "Spirit of Vatican II" cant, though he does not use that phrase either: "Many people have an understanding of the Council which is a wrong understanding."

The whole video is like that. Whether by Bishop Fellay's intent or by the video editor's intent, the interview comes across as nearly an endorsement of the neoCath position. What would Mark Shea, for example, find objectionable in this video?

Imagine that you wanted the SSPX to split. This is the video you would make. The rational fear that trads have (based on Campos and the FSSP) is that they will be muzzled and then assimilated into the neoCath borg, should they come back to Rome. And, taa daa, here is the (apparently) borg-enhanced, newly neoCath Bishop Fellay reciting the party line. He even claims to have had a kind of conversion experience: "In [the doctrinal] discussions . . . we see that many things we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council."

See, if you read the actual documents of VII and ignore the Spirit of VII, you'll see it's not so bad . . .

[ImmaculataFides]

Here's a comment from Rorate Caeli. I found it interesting!

Originally Posted by Bill

This is a disturbing video, assuming it has not been edited dishonestly. I have seen Bishop Fellay speak many times (on video), and this is a quite different Bishop Fellay.

H.E. begins by saying that it is wrong to think of SSPX vs Rome. He, himself, has talked in those terms many times. He then talks (very vaguely) about the current crisis in the Church, but does not use the word "crisis" or the word "Modernism." In fact, it sounds like he is embracing the "Spirit of Vatican II" cant, though he does not use that phrase either: "Many people have an understanding of the Council which is a wrong understanding."

The whole video is like that. Whether by Bishop Fellay's intent or by the video editor's intent, the interview comes across as nearly an endorsement of the neoCath position. What would Mark Shea, for example, find objectionable in this video?

Imagine that you wanted the SSPX to split. This is the video you would make. The rational fear that trads have (based on Campos and the FSSP) is that they will be muzzled and then assimilated into the neoCath borg, should they come back to Rome. And, taa daa, here is the (apparently) borg-enhanced, newly neoCath Bishop Fellay reciting the party line. He even claims to have had a kind of conversion experience: "In [the doctrinal] discussions . . . we see that many things we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council."

See, if you read the actual documents of VII and ignore the Spirit of VII, you'll see it's not so bad . . .

I indeed believe that the video had very dishonest editing to further an agenda!

[ImmaculataFides]

Here's a comment from Rorate Caeli. I found it interesting!

Originally Posted by Bill

This is a disturbing video, assuming it has not been edited dishonestly. I have seen Bishop Fellay speak many times (on video), and this is a quite different Bishop Fellay.

H.E. begins by saying that it is wrong to think of SSPX vs Rome. He, himself, has talked in those terms many times. He then talks (very vaguely) about the current crisis in the Church, but does not use the word "crisis" or the word "Modernism." In fact, it sounds like he is embracing the "Spirit of Vatican II" cant, though he does not use that phrase either: "Many people have an understanding of the Council which is a wrong understanding."

The whole video is like that. Whether by Bishop Fellay's intent or by the video editor's intent, the interview comes across as nearly an endorsement of the neoCath position. What would Mark Shea, for example, find objectionable in this video?

Imagine that you wanted the SSPX to split. This is the video you would make. The rational fear that trads have (based on Campos and the FSSP) is that they will be muzzled and then assimilated into the neoCath borg, should they come back to Rome. And, taa daa, here is the (apparently) borg-enhanced, newly neoCath Bishop Fellay reciting the party line. He even claims to have had a kind of conversion experience: "In [the doctrinal] discussions . . . we see that many things we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council."

See, if you read the actual documents of VII and ignore the Spirit of VII, you'll see it's not so bad . . .

I indeed believe there's a possibility that video was dishonestly edited to further an agenda! It is the Catholic news service after all, hardly favorable to tradition!

[choliks]

Originally Posted by ImmaculataFides

So many traditionalists are calling him a traitor.

I watch anxiously! I hope nothing bad happens from this preamble! I watch anxiously!

God's will be done...
God's will be done...
God's will be done...

St. Pius X, protect us!

Don't worry I.F. Let God do His work. Let go.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by ImmaculataFides

So many traditionalists are calling him a traitor.

I watch anxiously! I hope nothing bad happens from this preamble! I watch anxiously!

God's will be done...
God's will be done...
God's will be done...

St. Pius X, protect us!

Just observe the word, "traitor". That's not a word of love. It's a word of hate. Even Judas is not called a traitor in the Scriptures. He is referred to as the one who betrayed the Lord. The Evangelists describe his actions, but do not label him. These people who are going out of their way to label this man have a reason. Their reason is an intense hatred for the Vatican. They think that it's about tradition, but it's running away with them. I tend to agree with Bishop Fellays letter to the bishops. They're getting worse rather than better, because they're beginning to place too much trust in their own efforts and forgetting that the Church belongs to Christ. If one wants to truly do Christ's will, one works for unity and peace. One does not declare war.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[ImmaculataFides]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Just observe the word, "traitor". That's not a word of love. It's a word of hate. Even Judas is not called a traitor in the Scriptures. He is referred to as the one who betrayed the Lord. The Evangelists describe his actions, but do not label him. These people who are going out of their way to label this man have a reason. Their reason is an intense hatred for the Vatican. They think that it's about tradition, but it's running away with them. I tend to agree with Bishop Fellays letter to the bishops. They're getting worse rather than better, because they're beginning to place too much trust in their own efforts and forgetting that the Church belongs to Christ. If one wants to truly do Christ's will, one works for unity and peace. One does not declare war.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I don't want to nit pick, but I do believe that he is called a 'traitor', depending on the translation.

In the Douay Rheims:

And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor. - Luke 6:16

[choliks]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Just observe the word, "traitor". That's not a word of love. It's a word of hate. Even Judas is not called a traitor in the Scriptures. He is referred to as the one who betrayed the Lord. The Evangelists describe his actions, but do not label him. These people who are going out of their way to label this man have a reason. Their reason is an intense hatred for the Vatican. They think that it's about tradition, but it's running away with them. I tend to agree with Bishop Fellays letter to the bishops. They're getting worse rather than better, because they're beginning to place too much trust in their own efforts and forgetting that the Church belongs to Christ. If one wants to truly do Christ's will, one works for unity and peace. One does not declare war.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I'm beginning to think that the radical traditionalists who say such things are putting themselves in the same boat as those they accuse as modernists and liberals. The only difference is how they placed their selves out of the Church.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by ImmaculataFides

Here's a comment from Rorate Caeli. I found it interesting!



I indeed believe that video was dishonestly edited to further an agenda! It is the Catholic news service after all, hardly favorable to tradition!

That's a major accusation of a very reputable news service. You may want to step back from this, Immaculata. You're beginning to see conspiracies where there have never been any. The CNS also did an excellent article from that interview, which flows much better. The video is obviously poorly edited, but it does not seem to have been for the purpose of propaganda.. Otherwise, their article would be been prejudiced and it was quite objective.

We have to shy away from seeing out Church as our enemy. That's very dangerous to the soul of the individual and to the soul of the Church. On the other hand, I can't say the same thing about this writer that you quoted. He goes out of his way to label and be aggressive toward the mainstream Catholic. If you read the article in CNS, they do not paint Bishop Fellay or the SSPX in negative terms as this writer does to the Church.

It seems that the name calling and finger pointing is coming from one side. What these folks are not listening to is what the Bishop has said at least three times this week. "The Pope wants this NOW." None of us are being given an option here. Those inside are not being asked if we want the SSPX back. The SSPX is not being asked if it wants to remain in its current state. The pope wants closure on this NOW. He wants the SSPX in or gone out of the Catholic Church, not in an irregular status. He prefers that they stay, because he really cares for them. But they can't take advantage of his love either.

These people seem to believe too much in their own power and are forgetting who calls the shots. If the SSPX does not sign this preamble, they have already been told that there will be a schism and it's their fault. Bishop Fellay said, "Rome will no longer tolerate this." Those are very strong words. I the past, he could care less what Rome tolerated or not. Somehow, Rome has made it perfectly clear to him that the SSPX has pushed the envelop more than Rome is willing to tolerate.

The first time it was excommunication of four bishops and suspension of all priests. The next step is either an interdict or a decree of schism. If the Holy See decrees a schism, there will be no place to turn, except to form their own Church. People better stop finding more ghosts and more conspiracies and start thinking how to make peace with the pope.

They wanted a pope who was not afraid to use his power. They have one and now they don't like it. They now have a pope who has put his foot down and said, "Enough. This has to be finished now." Suddenly they don't like this. Why? Because they didn't really want a "traditional pope". They wanted a pope who would slam dunk those whom they single out. And it's turning out that many people are being slammed and dunked, including the SSPX, the LCWR, the bishops in Austria and Germany and the Catholics in the USA.

As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for."

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[wasserfall]

Originally Posted by JReducation

These people who are going out of their way to label this man have a reason. Their reason is an intense hatred for the Vatican. They think that it's about tradition, but it's running away with them.

I went out and read a few of these threads elsewhere and my sense is that the people acting like this are mostly just frightened of change coming to their comfortable chapel.

The number one gripe, by far, is that everything is being done in secret.

They seem to feel like they ought to be able to know everything under proposal so they can personally consider the best course of action and tell Bishop Fellay what to do.

Personally I think I lot of this wailing and gnashing of teeth will die down once everything is announced. If you presume that Bishop Fellay will not suddenly turn his back on what he has been saying for the past 18 years (and I do so presume), then most of these people will see that they were worrying about something happening that didn't end up happening.

[wasserfall]

Originally Posted by JReducation

What these folks are not listening to is what the Bishop has said at least three times this week. "The Pope wants this NOW." None of us are being given an option here. Those inside are not being asked if we want the SSPX back. The SSPX is not being asked if it wants to remain in its current state. The pope wants closure on this NOW. He wants the SSPX in or gone out of the Catholic Church, not in an irregular status.

In the forum I was reading they just seemed to notice this today.
That's not surprising to me either. I didn't notice it at first until you pointed it out Brother JR.

[Brooklyn]

[quote]

Originally Posted by JReducation

We have to shy away from seeing out Church as our enemy. That's very dangerous to the soul of the individual and to the soul of the Church.

Criticizing this news service is not the same as criticizing the Church. It has been my experience that they provide a good service. But I think you have gone too far when you say that someone crictizing CNS is "seeing the church as our enemy." CNS is not the church. It is a news servce that comes with a Catholic point of view. As they say on their website:

While created in 1920 by the bishops of the United States, CNS is editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining division of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. CNS is staffed by trained, professional journalists; all eligible nonmanagement staffers are members of The Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America.

The pope wants closure on this NOW. He wants the SSPX in or gone out of the Catholic Church, not in an irregular status. He prefers that they stay, because he really cares for them. But they can't take advantage of his love either.

I think you are mischaracterizing the Holy Father's position when you say: "He wants the SSPX in or gone out of the Catholic Church, not in an irregular status. He prefers that they stay, because he really cares for them. But they can't take advantage of his love either" The Pope has been in dialogue with the SSPX for 12 years, even before he was Pope. There is a reason why he lifted the excommunication from the bishops. He is looking for much more than "closure." He more than "prefers that they stay." This isn't something that he just wants to clear off of his desk. All of his actions most assuredly point to the fact that he is working towards reconciliation, which is far more than just closure. As Bishop Fellay says in this video, if reconciliation happens, it will be all due to the Holy Father.

These people seem to believe too much in their own power and are forgetting who calls the shots. If the SSPX does not sign this preamble, they have already been told that there will be a schism and it's their fault. Bishop Fellay said, "Rome will no longer tolerate this." Those are very strong words. I the past, he could care less what Rome tolerated or not. Somehow, Rome has made it perfectly clear to him that the SSPX has pushed the envelop more than Rome is willing to tolerate.

It is my understanding that the SSPX has signed the preamble. Do you have information that says othewise?

I also think you are way too hard on Bishop Fellay. From the CNS article:

Insisting that "we don't want to be aggressive, we don't want to be provocative," Bishop Fellay said the Society of St. Pius X has served as a "sign of contradiction" during a period of increasing progressive influence in the church. He also allowed for the possibility that the group would continue to play such a role even after reconciliation with Rome.

"People welcome us now, people will, and others won't," he said. "If we see some discrepancies within the society, definitely there are also (divisions) in the Catholic Church."

"But we are not alone" in working to "defend the faith," the bishop said. "It's the pope himself who does it; that's his job. And if we are called to help the Holy Father in that, so be it."

I have continued to see this strong support of the Holy Father coming from the SSPX. The very fact that they call Pope Benedict XVI "the Holy Father" shows their support of him. And certainly you cannot disagree with Bishop Fellay that the past decades have seen "increasing progressive influence in the church." You may think the SSPX is too right wing, but as they have said, their disagreement with Rome has nothing to do with doctrine. The initial split with Rome came because Archbishop Lefebvre felt that if he was not able to consecrate his own bishops, the very existence of the SSPX was in danger. There is no doctrinal split between the SSPX and the Vatican. That is most probably why the Holy Father has been and continues to work so diligently to bring them back into reconciliation.

As the Bishop says, yes, the SSPX is no different from the rest of the Church when it comes to divisions. That has always been the case with the Catholic Church. So the fact that there are some in SSPX who disagree with Bishop Fellay should come as no shocker and not as a sign that reconciliation cannot happen. There is no doubt that if reconcilation happens, there will be an element in the SSPX who will break away. Bishop Fellay has made it clear that this fact alone will not stop the reconciliation.

They wanted a pope who was not afraid to use his power. They have one and now they don't like it. They now have a pope who has put his foot down and said, "Enough. This has to be finished now." Suddenly they don't like this. Why? Because they didn't really want a "traditional pope". They wanted a pope who would slam dunk those whom they single out. And it's turning out that many people are being slammed and dunked, including the SSPX, the LCWR, the bishops in Austria and Germany and the Catholics in the USA.

I really don't know what you are talking about here. When you say "They wanted a pope who was not afraid to use his power. They have one and now they don't like it.", are you talking about the SSPX? Are you talking about traditionalists in general? Sure there are extreme right wingers who reject Pope Bendict XVI, but that is nothing new in the church. And as I have also stated, many in the SSPX speak very favorably of this pope, including Bishop Fellay in this video. You are grouping a lot of very disparate groups together. The SSPX and the LCWR could not be more opposite of each other. What is your point?

[Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by choliks

Don't worry I.F. Let God do His work. Let go.

Don't worry, but never stop in prayer. Nothing happens without prayer.

[M-Dent]

Originally Posted by JReducation

The SSPX is a greater threat to Christian unity because it has bishops. It can perpetuate itself. Those other liberal wing groups don't have their own bishops, seminaries, clergy etc.

The SSPX has money to sustain itself indefinitely. These other groups can't do that. They'll fade away only to be replaced by another group. This has been going on for centuries on the left.

History has proven that heretical movements begin from the right, usually with very scrupulous leaders.

The SSPX has often taken positions and made statements that threaten the pope's personal apostolate, which is ecumenism, positions that endanger the lives of Christians in certain countries.

The SSPX has been blamed for dissent among religious of other orders, which have led to excommunications of these religious. Obviously, these are big boys and girls who have to take responsibility for their behavior. But there have been SSPX superiors who have encouraged them. You can't mess with three of the top 10 religious orders in the Church without people getting very concerned. Something has to be done with those religious, because they cannot be readmitted to their original communities. A prelature may help. You can group them into one body under the prelate.

Left-wing groups have been around since the time of Adam. None survives more than two generations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

A very interesting observation Brother. This statement most certainly has historical evidence to support it.

One could be suspicious that may change in the future - looking at a few university systems (that retain the name Catholic) lead by a religious order that appeal to many many nominal Christians. Yet, as you noted there is not the obvious willful effort to be lead by a bishop in opposition to the authority of the Holy See. Just hints of further trouble down the road.

Hopefully it's a misguided suspicion on my part.

[Brooklyn]

[quote]

Originally Posted by JReducation

The SSPX is a greater threat to Christian unity because it has bishops. It can perpetuate itself. Those other liberal wing groups don't have their own bishops, seminaries, clergy etc.

The SSPX has money to sustain itself indefinitely. These other groups can't do that. They'll fade away only to be replaced by another group. This has been going on for centuries on the left.

Remember what Gamaliel said in Acts 5:38-39: "for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God." I think it needs to be repeated that the SSPX is not in doctrinal conflict with the Vatican. Certainly certain members may be, but the authority of the SSPX is not. The SSPX is in canonical conflict with the Vatican. They are not preaching heresy. I don't think they should be compared to groups that do preach heresy.

Money alone will not sustain anyone. If God is not with them, they will not survive.

History has proven that heretical movements begin from the right, usually with very scrupulous leaders.

The SSPX has often taken positions and made statements that threaten the pope's personal apostolate, which is ecumenism, positions that endanger the lives of Christians in certain countries.

Again, individual members of the SSPX may have taken positions in opposition to Church teaching, but can you give examples of official SSPX teaching that conflicts with the Vatican? When has the SSPX endangered Christian lives in certain countries? I am unaware of this, and am not trying to oppose you, but am merely asking for confirmation.

The SSPX has been blamed for dissent among religious of other orders, which have led to excommunications of these religious. Obviously, these are big boys and girls who have to take responsibility for their behavior. But there have been SSPX superiors who have encouraged them. You can't mess with three of the top 10 religious orders in the Church without people getting very concerned. Something has to be done with those religious, because they cannot be readmitted to their original communities. A prelature may help. You can group them into one body under the prelate.

Again, these are very serious accusations, and I am unaware of any of this. Could you give some specific examples? I will say that you cannot hold the SSPX hierarchy responsible for the actions of disobedient members unless they are specifically supporting such actions.

[JustaServant]

Originally Posted by poorsinner7

I sincerely hope this separation ends in unity. I'm encouraged by the words I hear. My father was supportive of the SSPX. I never understood and feared this in light of dissent growing up. But I did empathize with his feelings. However, my father's support of conservative dissent was just as harmful to my faith as the leftist movement ultimately leaving me to believe there was no unity of belief... all was lost in translations. I try to understand these issues I really consider social and cultural in nature now.

I had parents who also dissented from the "spirit of Vatican 2" back in the 70s (which was not Vatican 2). It's very difficult for people today to understand the motives and the raw feelings of Catholics of that generation because they are looking at the situation today as if it were the same situation 40 years ago. It wasn't.
The first generation of traditionalists didn't call themselves "trads" back then, they were just Catholic, period. All they wanted was a Latin Mass and were told it was "banned" or "illegal". And if you went to a Latin Mass given by a retired priest validly ordained in the Catholic Church they were told they were no longer Catholic.
They were not radicals or revolutionaries or theologions. They were just working-class Catholics who simply wanted what they always had. They were marginalized, and made pariahs by the very clergy they expected to shepherd them.
This situation with the SSPX is far more complicated than many realize and the history is not as cut and dry as many imagine.
IMO, there was enough blame to go around on both sides of the Vatican 2 pond.