+
Ave Cor Mariae!
February 3, 2009, San Blas
Dear friends in Jesus and Mary:
I very much regret having to resort to this means, but circumstances force me.
Indeed, as you can see in my Appeal from Monsignor Fellay announced in June 2004 that he had asked Rome to withdraw the formal decree of excommunication of the Declaration "I wrote to my superiors asked to point out that this implied acceptance of excommunication, and that sooner or later we would end up accepting the lifting of them.
Once published the decree of January 21, in our chapels of the West not read the letter from the Superior General to the faithful because it contained inaccuracies, contradictions, and a serious ambiguity as to the acceptance of Vatican II (and this was recognized The text was modified but not the rest). Nor do we sing the Magnificat.
Through my Prior, who attended Monday 26 to a reunion in Paris, called loudly to my superiors and without constituting an ultimatum a week as I limit my pending a review of the acceptance of the decree of the Vatican .
In the absence of a statement to that effect, on Saturday January 31 I started to send by fax this appeal to the four bishops and superiors of all the districts, regions and Homes Seminar Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius (21 fax total), with the hope that, as they beg at the end of the text, before God reconsider the current situation and that, following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, returned on his footsteps.
Not only is urgent and time passes, but other serious statements of the Superior General joined the "citations and recitals of my Appeal.
As the only response I received yesterday a letter from the Superior General addressed exclusively to the priests of the Fraternity, which confirms its decision to accept as is and without imputing the Decree of January 21 last.
I hope that he could not understand my silence to endorse this ambiguous situation, and it was my obligation to make public my Appeal.
I ask you to disseminate this document without discussions or fights, everyone read and make decisions. I ask that, individually or by families or by Priories Places of Mass or write to the four bishops to appeal to follow Archbishop Lefebvre and having the greatness of soul to keep the fraternity is hopelessly caught in the trap have tended to mortal.
I commend to your prayers.
May God bless you and may Our Lady protect their families.
Yours in the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary Immaculate
Father Juan Carlos Ceriani
---------------------------
APPEAL OF THE FATHER JUAN CARLOS Ceriani
Since the decree of January 21, 2009, signed by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, said:
"Through the letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on behalf of themselves and the other bishops consecrated on June 30 1988, again requesting the lifting of the excommunication latae sententiae formally declared by decree of the Prefect of this Sacred Congregation for Bishops dated July 1, 1988 (...) According to the powers that I have been expressly granted by the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, under this decree, the bishops refer to Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier of Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta censure of excommunication latae sententiae declared by the Congregation on 1 July 1988 to declare private legal effect from today then published the decree. "
Since the release of the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity Saint Pius X said:
"The excommunication of bishops consecrated by His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 30, 1988, which had been declared by the Congregation for Bishops by a decree of 1 July 1988 and we have always rejected, was withdrawn by another decree of the Congregation dated January 21, 2009, by mandate of Pope Benedict XVI. "
Since Monsignor Bernard Fellay, Superior General, Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X said:
"After these extensive discussions [November 2005] Cardinal [Castrillón Hoyos Darío] said:" I see that everything they put out not outside the Church, are thus in the Church. " And continued by saying: "I ask you to write to the Pope asking him to remove the excommunication." Since then, we stayed here because obviously we will not ask to remove anything you do not recognize. We have always refused to recognize the validity of the excommunication, because we can not ask to remove anything that does not exist. " (Sermon on the seminar Flavigny, February 2, 2006. Fuente, DICI No. 130).
Seen that when I explained to my superiors my observations regarding the link between the "Declaration of a penalty" and "punishment in itself" and therefore request that "the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication statement" recognizing "the validity of censorship", I received the following responses:
• "You confuse withdraw a decree of excommunication excommunication with a lift (...) In any relevant document or be very careful not to mention or say" lift the excommunication "(Letter from Bishop Bernard Fellay andalusia father Ceriani, 3 August 2004).
• "You can actually see that the Father Sommerville did not read like the priests of the Fraternity" the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication, "but speaks of" lifting of the excommunication. " Simply is not aware of the distinction and our insistence that we must take it. It is necessary to simply take it as a usual way of speaking "(Letter of Mgr Bernard Fellay andalusia father Ceriani, the February 26, 2005).
• "I believe and maintain that it is simply a matter of imprecise language in the text in question. Nothing else! I do not think it worthwhile to make a drama. "(Letter of Mgr Bernard Fellay andalusia father Ceriani, the June 3, 2005).
• "Bishop Fellay officially called" the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication. " Not called for the lifting or removal of the excommunication itself, which does not recognize calls precisely lifting the decree, is very different. But do you understand the difference? Want to think about this? "(Letter of Mgr Tissier Mallerais father andalusia Ceriani on August 31, 2004).
• "I do not share their concerns with regard to discussions with Rome. I said in my last letter that his restless nature plays tricks on him, because objectively there is no matter for concern. In fact, Bishop Fellay well maintained firmly that he has raised two preliminary andalusia Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos four years ago, namely the recognition of the inalienable right of the traditional Mass and the lifting of the no-censorship, but the decree of excommunication of bishops . I explained that it is not the same thing. The protocol of 1988 provided for the lifting of the irregularities and the suspension of Bishop Fellay calls for the lifting of the decree: do not recognize, therefore, the validity of censorship. "(Letter of Mgr Tissier Mallerais Ceriani andalusia father, 18 September 2004).
As the Father of Cacqueray, District Superior of France, in his editorial in La Porte Latine, from 1 January 2009, "From a preliminary to another", said:
"As for the consecrations of June 30, 1988, were ipso facto punishable by excommunication under the new Code of Canon Law. But the fraternity refuses however to seek "a lifting of sanctions." Seeks "the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication," and does not escape anyone that the terms used to translate the order have been chosen intentionally (...) If it were really the withdrawal of the decree and not a lifting of excommunication - would then be the principle of reparation of the injustice inaudita known, and may rejoice (...) If you were a "lifting of the excommunication," things would be very different way. Not correspond to our second preliminary lavaría and not in any way our bishops ill that they were fighting. Leaving believe the sentences were not invalid and that even deserved, does not result in a sense at least, a new evil deeper? Then Rome would have withdrawn, with a compassionate look, who would be sanctions for the same act, confirmed as valid, and legitimately imposed. "
Yo, Juan Carlos Ceriani father appealed to the founder of the Priestly Fraternity Saint Pius X, Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, and the authorities of the fraternity, those who reported at the time of the episcopal consecrations:
"Being occupied by the Chair of Peter antichrists and positions of authority in Rome, continues to rapidly destroying the Kingdom of our Lord to themselves, his Mystical Body on earth (...) It's what earned us the persecution of the Roma antichrist (...) I am obliged by divine Providence to convey the grace of the Catholic Bishops have received for the priesthood and the Catholic Church continued to exist for the glory of God and the salvation of souls (...) Therefore, convinced fulfill the holy will of our Lord, that I ask for this letter to receive the grace of the Catholic Bishops Conference ... "(Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre future bishops. Fidelitas Numéro hors série, Juin 1988, page 61).
"Since after the Second Vatican Council today, the authorities of the Roman Church are inspired by a modernist spirit, acting against the Holy Tradition (...) we feel that all the censures and penalties applied by these authorities have no weight" ( Mandate read at the ceremony of episcopal consecration. Fidelitas No. 65. Septembre-Octobre 1988, page 11).
"Eminence, gathered around its Superior General, the Superior district, seminars and independent houses Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, I respectfully think should express the following thoughts. You believed his duty, for your letter of 1 July last, to know his excommunication latae sententiae, His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, His Excellency Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer and the four bishops who consecrated them on June 30 last in Econ. Will you judge the value of such a statement coming from an authority, in pursuit of the break with all his predecessors to the Pope Pius XII, in worship, teaching and government of the Church.
As for us we are in full communion with the Popes and the Bishops who have preceded the Second Vatican Council, the Mass celebrating exactly they have consolidated and held by teaching them the Catechism composed, to oppose the errors they condemned many times in his encyclicals and pastoral letters. Then you want to judge which side is the breakdown. We are extremely saddened by the blindness of spirit and heart of the hardening of the Roman authorities. However, we never wanted to belong to this system is described themselves Conciliar Church and is defined by the Novus Ordo Missae, ecumenism indifference and the secularization of society. Yes, we do not have anywhere Nullam partem Habemus, with the pantheon of religions in Assisi, our own by a decree of excommunication Your Eminence or other Dicastery not be more than the evidence. We did not ask anything better than being declared former adulterer communion of the spirit blowing in the Church for twenty-five years, excluding the unholy communion with unbelievers. We believe in one God, our Lord Jesus Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and will always be faithful to his only wife, the Church One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman. Being a public sanction that thunder to the six Catholic bishops, defenders of the faith in their integrity and in full, would be for us an honor and distinction of a sign in front of the orthodox faithful. These in fact have absolute right to know that the priests to whom they are addressed not in communion with a church falsified, evolutionary, Pentecostal, and syncretistic (...). "(Open Letter to His Eminence Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. Econ, July 6, 1988. Fidelitas No. 64. Juillet-Août 1988, pages 11-12).
Follow the signatures of the Superior General of the Higher District, Seminars, Homes Autonomous Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X: Schmidberger parents, Paul Aulagnier, Franz Josep-Maessen, Edward Black, Anthony Esposito, François Laisney, Emily Jacques Jean-Michel Faure, Gerard Hogan, Lorans Alain, Jean-Paul André, Paul Natterer Andres Morello, William Welsh, Michel Simoulin, Patrice Laroche, François Philippe, Roland de Mérode, Georg Pfluger, Guillaume Devillers, Philippe Pazat Daniel Couture Patrick Groch, Franck Peek. (Parents whose names are identified by a bar no more belong to the fraternity).
Noted that I endorse all the statements of Archbishop Lefebvre and the authorities of the fraternity at the time of the episcopal consecrations, and that I endorse.
I invite the authorities of the fraternity is currently in force to make them publicly endorse and sign.
And I answered by null and void, both in law and fact, the alleged excommunication, which seeks to declare the decree and the decree which attempts to lift them, believe that leaving was not invalid.
And pleas to the four bishops of the fraternity before God rethink the current situation and, following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, on their back steps. In such ambiguous circumstances, the priests and the faithful need to be confirmed by the good fight against the Roma Eterna Church reconcile.
Fort de France, January 29, 2009
Father Juan Carlos Ceriani
Note: On the night of 5 May 6 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre returned on their steps and not proceeded with the protocol was signed the day before: "If you knew the night I spent on my signature agreements famous! Oh! as I arrived late that morning in order to submit a letter of revocation he had prepared during the night. " _________________ AVE COR MARIAE
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: Bishop Richard Williamson should step down, resign...
Ambrosiano wrote:
demographic_crash wrote:
Bishop Richard Williamson should step down, resign...
This is complete nonsense!
An opinion on a historical fact is not important to be part of the Church: only dogmas and doctrine are!
One must be free to think as he pleases on secular matter. A priest can deny the holocaust, or the trip to the moon or the french revolution: this does not interfere with his duty.
Now with this the Vatican is proclaming the holocaust a dogma to be believed to be part of the Church: this is simply ludicrous!
Sorry champ, but that's all he comments about that he shouldn't. He is literally dragging people down with his comments and should resign. If you haven't heard him give public talks the majority of them are on conspiracy theories and I don't know why.
When he talks on the faith he is great. Sadly, he is so focused on political matters it blinds him to his mission as a bishop and yes, even scandalizes people. I have been witness to this several times and while I'm not scandalized I heard the remarks.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:37 pm Post subject: Re: Bishop Richard Williamson should step down, resign...
bigbadtrad wrote:
Sorry champ, but that's all he comments about that he shouldn't. He is literally dragging people down with his comments and should resign.
You are calling for the resignation of the wrong Bishop. The recent post on Bishop O'Reilly in Ireland who is perfectly fine with teaching Islam in Catholic schools is the one who should step down. He is a heretic.
Bishop Williamson is no heretic. The Church could use a few hundred like him! _________________ Quod Deus non est, nihil est.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: Bishop Richard Williamson should step down, resign...
Dom wrote:
demographic_crash wrote:
Bishop Richard Williamson should step down, resign... The bad thing with him is that the SSPX knew about this a long time ago... That is why they get drawn into this now also...
I find all this talking of the resignation of Bishop Williamson very telling. Why should he resign? Because he has hurt Jewish sensibilities? I would guess that very few here are that interested in that aspect. Rather it is a symptom of the desperate need some here to feel that the SSPX be accepted by Rome. If only the SSPX and Rome work out a deal in good American pragmatic fashion, then all will work out. Why can't we all just get along together?
Well one reason we can't is because the present Roman authorities are the apostles of a religion different from the one founded by Our Lord. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was spot on in his last interview. The negotiations have but one purpose, and that is CONVERT the Roman authorities to Tradition- not to find a practical way both can work together. Does anyone here realize that every time the pope or bishops have one of these ecumenical prayer services, that it is a violation of the first commandment and thus a mortal sin? Does anyone care about the many grave errors against the religion of Christ which this pope and his few past predecessors have disseminated by their preaching or writings?
And lest one be too hard on Bishop Williamson, a quick reading of any of Fr. Fahey's books will tell you that the great force promoting a society built on a foundation against that willed by God is that people who happen to be the one so furious at his comments. That people as an organized political and economic force has consistently fought against the Church. It is why Civilta Catolica, the once great journal in Rome, was writing at the end of Leo XIII's reign that this people should never be allowed citizenship in any Christian state. How times have changed. _________________ http://credidimuscaritati.blogspot.com
The only "resigning" Bsp. W should do is to resign himself to the fact that he has a great, huge public target on his backside, and that the his words have impact far beyond their face value, for good or ill. It seems to this poor, ignorant observer that H.E. could be a much more effective advocate for the Faith if he concentrated more on his vocation and less on his avocations.
C'mon, people, this is politics, and thus does not require above-average intelligence. Here are the points in the letter, and how easily they can be dealt with for public show purposes without diluting the Faith one bit: ... I have absolute trust in Bsp. Fellay to handle this.
With all due respect, since you show that you have no clue about what any of it means, you are bound for disappointment in Bishop Fellay.
By the way, Cardinal Kasper denies that the Resurrection was in any way an historical event, in his book "Jesus, The Christ." There do not appear to be any "politics" occurring because of that, except that Kasper has been consistently promoted ever since he published his heresy in the mid-70s.
We've just been told with crystal clarity what matters (the doctrines of V2, and The Holocaust). These things matter to the same people. The Vatican seeks to reassure the same people that its Faith in The Shoah is as solid as its Faith in Nostrae Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae. That's because the same people are concerned about both issues. Vatican II was as much the triumph of their doctrines as acceptance of "The Sacrifice of the Newest Religion" is a part of their doctrinal fabric.
We live in interesting times. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
Following the reactions caused by the recent Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, with which the excommunication of the four Prelates of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X was remitted, and regarding the negationist or reductionist declarations on the Shoah from Bishop Williamson, of the same Fraternity, it is considered convenient to clarify a few aspects of past events.
1. Remmission of the excommunication.
As already published previously, the Decree of the Congregation for Bishops, dated January 21, 2009, was an act by which the Holy Father graciously responded to the reiterated requests by the Superior General of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
His Holiness desired to remove an obstacle which prevented the opening of a door to dialogue. He now expects that an equal disposition will be expressed by the four Bishops in complete adherence to the doctrine and the discipline of the Church.
The extremely grave censure of latae sententiae excommunication, in which the aforementioned Bishops had incurred on June 30, 1988, then formally declared on July 1 of the same year, was a consequence of their illegitimate ordinarion by Mons. Marcel Lefebvre.
The removal of the excommunication released the four Bishops from an extremely grave canonical censure, but has not changed the juridical position of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X which, at the current moment, does not enjoy any canonical recognition by the Catholic Church. Not even the four Bishops, though released from the excommunication, have a canonical function in the Church and they do not exercise licitly a ministry in it.
2. Tradition, doctrine, and the Second Vatican Council.
For a future recognition of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and of the same Benedict XVI is an indispensable condition
As it was already affirmed in the Decree of January 21, 2009, the Holy See will not avoid, in the forms judged appropriate, to deepen the the interested party the still open questions, so as to be able to reach a full and satisfactory resolution of the problems which originated this painful division.
3. Declarations on the Shoah
The positions of Mons. Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly refuted by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on the past January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, reaffirmed his full and unquestionable solidarity with our Brethren receivers of the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead "mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding that the Shoah remains "for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all".
Bishop Williamson, for an admission to episcopal functions in the Church, will also have to declare, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, distance from his positions regarding the Shoah, unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the remmission of the excommunication.
The Holy Father asks to be joined by the prayers of all the faithful, so that the Lord may enlighten the path of the Church. May the effort of the Pastors and of all the faithful grow in support of the delicate and burdensome mission of the Successor of Apostle Peter as "custodian of the unity" in the Church.
From the Vatican, February 4, 2009.
Dear Father,
don't you see and feel and know that this does NOT come from the Holy Father! This is the violent response from the freemasons who hold the Holy Father prisoner! Why would the Pope had taken away those excommunications for THIS to come after! The Pope is not so stupid! He knows that he needs FSSPX to cure Holy Mother Church! Please, we must stay now united with the Holy Father! I am afraid for his life!
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 Posts: 2006 Location: Pays d'Haute Louisiane
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:22 pm Post subject:
St.Justin wrote:
I am just curious? I don't see Cardinal Bertone's name anywhere. Is this even official?
The Secretary of State is currently in Spain, and the document is unsigned. It certainly was not drafted by the Secretary himself, unless he emailed or dictated it to his deputy to be passed to the Press Office. And Cardinal Bertone, as I said, still did not sign it, nor did the Holy Father. One wonders about such irregularities... _________________ O crux ave, spes unica
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 Posts: 2006 Location: Pays d'Haute Louisiane
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject:
Signature of authority on the document wrote:
From the Vatican, February 4, 2009.
What is this office called 'The Vatican' ? Who drafted this and published it ? Was it Cardinal Bertone, even though His Eminence is currently in Spain ?
Birgittino is right; perhaps one should be concerned for the Holy Father's life. I would not be surprised if the Pope was driven from Rome within five years, because the world does not care about the deaths of Jews in WWII Germany or about interreligious dialogue. The world loves itself alone, caring for humanitarian feeling and ideological abstractions that allow them to justify their hatred for and rebellion against Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. The rest is just details. _________________ O crux ave, spes unica
C'mon, people, this is politics, and thus does not require above-average intelligence. Here are the points in the letter, and how easily they can be dealt with for public show purposes without diluting the Faith one bit: ... I have absolute trust in Bsp. Fellay to handle this.
With all due respect, since you show that you have no clue about what any of it means, you are bound for disappointment in Bishop Fellay.
By the way, Cardinal Kasper denies that the Resurrection was in any way an historical event, in his book "Jesus, The Christ." There do not appear to be any "politics" occurring because of that, except that Kasper has been consistently promoted ever since he published his heresy in the mid-70s.
We've just been told with crystal clarity what matters (the doctrines of V2, and The Holocaust). These things matter to the same people. The Vatican seeks to reassure the same people that its Faith in The Shoah is as solid as its Faith in Nostrae Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae. That's because the same people are concerned about both issues. Vatican II was as much the triumph of their doctrines as acceptance of "The Sacrifice of the Newest Religion" is a part of their doctrinal fabric.
We live in interesting times.
With all due respect, you are paranoid. Bsp. Fellay has not made one wrong move in any of this. He acts when action is warranted, and bides his time when it is not, while the Chicken Littles and "Father Moderators" of the world pitch hissy fit after hissy fit while wringing their hands and accomplishing nothing. If you want to be a BLEEP!, that's your business, but don't try to pretend it makes one bit of sense.
With all due respect, you are paranoid. Bsp. Fellay has not made one wrong move in any of this.
I agree. And he won't bow to this garbage from Rome. That was my point. You appeared to be suggesting that he would play the politics and take some further action in relation to Bishop Williamson. I'm saying that he will do nothing of the sort.
If you want to be a neo-Catholic that's your choice, but please don't accuse the rest of us to your right of being "bleeps". That would be politics - of the worst kind. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
C'mon, people, this is politics, and thus does not require above-average intelligence. Here are the points in the letter, and how easily they can be dealt with for public show purposes without diluting the Faith one bit: ... I have absolute trust in Bsp. Fellay to handle this.
With all due respect, since you show that you have no clue about what any of it means, you are bound for disappointment in Bishop Fellay.
By the way, Cardinal Kasper denies that the Resurrection was in any way an historical event, in his book "Jesus, The Christ." There do not appear to be any "politics" occurring because of that, except that Kasper has been consistently promoted ever since he published his heresy in the mid-70s.
We've just been told with crystal clarity what matters (the doctrines of V2, and The Holocaust). These things matter to the same people. The Vatican seeks to reassure the same people that its Faith in The Shoah is as solid as its Faith in Nostrae Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae. That's because the same people are concerned about both issues. Vatican II was as much the triumph of their doctrines as acceptance of "The Sacrifice of the Newest Religion" is a part of their doctrinal fabric.
We live in interesting times.
With all due respect, you are paranoid.
No, I think rather you are engaged in wishful thinking. Someone who points out some things that stand in the way (or appear to you to stand in the way) of your hopes is nothing more than a "prophet of doom" who stands in the way of the "new springtime".
With all due respect, you are paranoid. Bsp. Fellay has not made one wrong move in any of this.
I agree. And he won't bow to this garbage from Rome. That was my point. You appeared to be suggesting that he would play the politics and take some further action in relation to Bishop Williamson. I'm saying that he will do nothing of the sort.
If you want to be a neo-Catholic that's your choice, but please don't accuse the rest of us to your right of being "bleeps". That would be politics - of the worst kind.
Reading is a skill. Reading in is a handicap. I don't buy into your artificial "right/left" construct, but you go on ahead, and I'll continue to be just a Catholic without a hyphen. Bsp. Fellay has shown himself to be quite adept at navigating in a political world without becoming a creature of politics. I am (and was) very clearly and explicitly suggesting that I have no reason to suspect that he will diverge from that course at present. It is unfortunate that you failed to read that the first time through. I can't say whether you are or are not a BLEEP!, but you certainly give the impression that you are fond of their tinfoil-hat neuroses.
C'mon, people, this is politics, and thus does not require above-average intelligence. Here are the points in the letter, and how easily they can be dealt with for public show purposes without diluting the Faith one bit: ... I have absolute trust in Bsp. Fellay to handle this.
With all due respect, since you show that you have no clue about what any of it means, you are bound for disappointment in Bishop Fellay.
By the way, Cardinal Kasper denies that the Resurrection was in any way an historical event, in his book "Jesus, The Christ." There do not appear to be any "politics" occurring because of that, except that Kasper has been consistently promoted ever since he published his heresy in the mid-70s.
We've just been told with crystal clarity what matters (the doctrines of V2, and The Holocaust). These things matter to the same people. The Vatican seeks to reassure the same people that its Faith in The Shoah is as solid as its Faith in Nostrae Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae. That's because the same people are concerned about both issues. Vatican II was as much the triumph of their doctrines as acceptance of "The Sacrifice of the Newest Religion" is a part of their doctrinal fabric.
We live in interesting times.
With all due respect, you are paranoid.
No, I think rather you are engaged in wishful thinking. Someone who points out some things that stand in the way (or appear to you to stand in the way) of your hopes is nothing more than a "prophet of doom" who stands in the way of the "new springtime".
You don't know me very well, do you, Pal? If you'd been around here more than a week or so, you would be embarrassed by what you posted. Learn the ropes (and who you're dealing with) before you humiliate yourself any further.
You don't know me very well, do you, Pal? If you'd been around here more than a week or so, you would be embarrassed by what you posted. Learn the ropes (and who you're dealing with) before you humiliate yourself any further.
Note to LS. We're dealing with a woman. An important one. Show humility. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
C'mon, people, this is politics, and thus does not require above-average intelligence. Here are the points in the letter, and how easily they can be dealt with for public show purposes without diluting the Faith one bit: ... I have absolute trust in Bsp. Fellay to handle this.
With all due respect, since you show that you have no clue about what any of it means, you are bound for disappointment in Bishop Fellay.
By the way, Cardinal Kasper denies that the Resurrection was in any way an historical event, in his book "Jesus, The Christ." There do not appear to be any "politics" occurring because of that, except that Kasper has been consistently promoted ever since he published his heresy in the mid-70s.
We've just been told with crystal clarity what matters (the doctrines of V2, and The Holocaust). These things matter to the same people. The Vatican seeks to reassure the same people that its Faith in The Shoah is as solid as its Faith in Nostrae Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae. That's because the same people are concerned about both issues. Vatican II was as much the triumph of their doctrines as acceptance of "The Sacrifice of the Newest Religion" is a part of their doctrinal fabric.
We live in interesting times.
With all due respect, you are paranoid.
No, I think rather you are engaged in wishful thinking. Someone who points out some things that stand in the way (or appear to you to stand in the way) of your hopes is nothing more than a "prophet of doom" who stands in the way of the "new springtime".
You don't know me very well, do you, Pal? If you'd been around here more than a week or so, you would be embarrassed by what you posted. Learn the ropes (and who you're dealing with) before you humiliate yourself any further.
I don't know you at all. Could you point out some of the embarrassing posts I've made?
Humiliation is okay with me, I like to learn from my mistakes.
Bsp. Williamson never, ever denied that many Jews were killed by the Nazis, nor has he ever even implied that genocide is acceptable in any way. He merely questioned the number killed and the manner in which they were dispatched. Bs. W has already very eloquently given his mea culpa. He could very easily, and without the least bit of compromise to the truth or the Faith, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, distance himself from the views that are now being attributed to him, since he has never expressed such views.
This whole bit of nonsense is about giving the chief cover, which is something a loyal soldier should always do (especially one who has been caught in an embarrassing ambush). The Vatican has tossed up a softball here. Once Bsp. Fellay and Bsp. W hit it out of the park, the Pope can declare victory and thwart his critics, then get on with the real work of fixing the Church. I have absolute trust in Bsp. Fellay to handle this.
My judgement is that Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson will read this as a requirement that Bishop Williamson actually declare that he accepts the "6 million" official package. But Bp. W. can't do that, because he doesn't believe it. You appear to be saying that Bp. W. can merely declare that he doesn't deny Jews died, which clearly will not satisfy the demand being made upon him by the Vatican.
So I am very sorry for any misunderstanding, and I invite you to explain what you actually had in mind. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
Bsp. Williamson never, ever denied that many Jews were killed by the Nazis, nor has he ever even implied that genocide is acceptable in any way. He merely questioned the number killed and the manner in which they were dispatched. Bs. W has already very eloquently given his mea culpa. He could very easily, and without the least bit of compromise to the truth or the Faith, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, distance himself from the views that are now being attributed to him, since he has never expressed such views.
This whole bit of nonsense is about giving the chief cover, which is something a loyal soldier should always do (especially one who has been caught in an embarrassing ambush). The Vatican has tossed up a softball here. Once Bsp. Fellay and Bsp. W hit it out of the park, the Pope can declare victory and thwart his critics, then get on with the real work of fixing the Church. I have absolute trust in Bsp. Fellay to handle this.
My judgement is that Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson will read this as a requirement that Bishop Williamson actually declare that he accepts the "6 million" official package. But Bp. W. can't do that, because he doesn't believe it. You appear to be saying that Bp. W. can merely declare that he doesn't deny Jews died, which clearly will not satisfy the demand being made upon him by the Vatican.
So I am very sorry for any misunderstanding, and I invite you to explain what you actually had in mind.
What I "had in mind" is abundantly clear from what I wrote, if you had bothered to first read the actual text of the so-called "demand" from the Vatican. That notwithstanding, your judgment that the leadership of the Society will engage in as much "reading in" as you do is based upon nothing at all. The Vatican communique' says no such thing. Pope Benedict has said no such thing. Bishop Fellay has said no such thing. Bishop Williamson has said no such thing.
Here's what the Vatican actually said:
Quote:
The positions of Mons. Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly refuted by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on the past January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, reaffirmed his full and unquestionable solidarity with our Brethren receivers of the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead "mankind to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man", adding that the Shoah remains "for all a warning against forgetfulness, against denial or reductionism, because the violence against a single human being is violence against all".
Bishop Williamson, for an admission to episcopal functions in the Church, will also have to declare, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, distance from his positions regarding the Shoah, unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the remmission of the excommunication.
Bishop Fellay stated the following:
Quote:
"We evidently condemn every act of murder of the innocent. It is a crime that cries to heaven! Even more so when it is related to a people. We reject every accusation of Antisemitism. Completely and absolutely. We reject every form of approval of what happened under Hitler. This is something abominable. Christianity places Charity at a supreme level. Saint Paul, speaking of the Jews, proclaims, 'I wished myself to be an anathema [from Christ], for my brethren!" (Rom. 9, 3). The Jews are "our elder brothers" in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.
"It is very interesting to notice that the Church did not await for the Council to prescribe courses of action regarding the Jews. Since the 30s, even during the war, several texts of Rome provide a very just position: the abominations of the Hitlerist regime must be condemned! 'Spiritually, we all Semites', Pope Pius XI had said. It is a truth which comes from Sacred Scripture itself, 'we are sons of Abraham,' Saint Paul also affirms."
Bishop Fellay's statement is even stronger than that of the Vatican, and it is perfectly in accordance with the Traditional Catholic approach to the issue. Whatever Bsp. W may think about what happened in Dachau and Auschwitz, I cannot imagine that he disagrees with anything at all in Bishop Fellay's statement. All HE would have to do to amply satisfy the Vatican's "demand" is to adopt Bsp. F's statement as his own. Pope BXVI has already shown a willingness to tell the Jews, "Enough, already!" I believe that he would not hesitate to do so again in this instance. You are launching into an hysterical rant over your own imaginings, nothing more.
You don't know me very well, do you, Pal? If you'd been around here more than a week or so, you would be embarrassed by what you posted. Learn the ropes (and who you're dealing with) before you humiliate yourself any further.
Note to LS. We're dealing with a woman. An important one. Show humility.
For the record, a couple of clarifications:
1. I may at times be self-important, but I am nobody important;
2. My parents, my wife, and my many children will attest to the fact that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a woman. Are you truly that oblivious to what goes on here, or was that a juvenile attempt at an insult?
C'mon, people, this is politics, and thus does not require above-average intelligence. Here are the points in the letter, and how easily they can be dealt with for public show purposes without diluting the Faith one bit: ... I have absolute trust in Bsp. Fellay to handle this.
With all due respect, since you show that you have no clue about what any of it means, you are bound for disappointment in Bishop Fellay.
By the way, Cardinal Kasper denies that the Resurrection was in any way an historical event, in his book "Jesus, The Christ." There do not appear to be any "politics" occurring because of that, except that Kasper has been consistently promoted ever since he published his heresy in the mid-70s.
We've just been told with crystal clarity what matters (the doctrines of V2, and The Holocaust). These things matter to the same people. The Vatican seeks to reassure the same people that its Faith in The Shoah is as solid as its Faith in Nostrae Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae. That's because the same people are concerned about both issues. Vatican II was as much the triumph of their doctrines as acceptance of "The Sacrifice of the Newest Religion" is a part of their doctrinal fabric.
We live in interesting times.
With all due respect, you are paranoid.
No, I think rather you are engaged in wishful thinking. Someone who points out some things that stand in the way (or appear to you to stand in the way) of your hopes is nothing more than a "prophet of doom" who stands in the way of the "new springtime".
You don't know me very well, do you, Pal? If you'd been around here more than a week or so, you would be embarrassed by what you posted. Learn the ropes (and who you're dealing with) before you humiliate yourself any further.
I don't know you at all. Could you point out some of the embarrassing posts I've made?
Humiliation is okay with me, I like to learn from my mistakes.
If you aren't embarrassed by charging into a forum about which you know nothing, and proceeding to make ignorant and belligerent statements, I'm not sure I can help you. But here goes, anyhow. First, read the posting guidelines you agreed to when you signed up here. There's a nice section on "annoying the membership" that you might find instructive. Second, go back and browse through the posts that I've made here, and you figure out how enamored I am of any New Springtime.
Joined: 15 Feb 2006 Posts: 1189 Location: Louisiana
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject:
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
Pope BXVI has already shown a willingness to tell the Jews, "Enough, already!" I believe that he would not hesitate to do so again in this instance. You are launching into an hysterical rant over your own imaginings, nothing more.
One example of this would be the change to the Good Friday prayer, which many of us did not like. It turned out that the whiners who demanded the change were also not satisfied by it -- the Pope gave them what they asked for but not what they wanted. Maybe we'll see something similar here.
I don't know you at all. Could you point out some of the embarrassing posts I've made?
Humiliation is okay with me, I like to learn from my mistakes.
If you aren't embarrassed by charging into a forum about which you know nothing, and proceeding to make ignorant and belligerent statements, I'm not sure I can help you.
I asked you to point out where this occurred. Can you be specific?
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
But here goes, anyhow. First, read the posting guidelines you agreed to when you signed up here. There's a nice section on "annoying the membership" that you might find instructive.
I don't think I've posted anything "annoying". Can you please show me where I did such a thing and tell me why it annoyed you?
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
Second, go back and browse through the posts that I've made here, and you figure out how enamored I am of any New Springtime.
That wasn't my point. I know you don't like the "new springtime" any more that I do. My point was that your attitude appears to be one of "no resistance" (resistance to whatever your preconceived notions with respect to the current situation are) just like dismissing those who urged caution prior to Vatican II as, "prophets of doom".
I find all this talking of the resignation of Bishop Williamson very telling. Why should he resign? Because he has hurt Jewish sensibilities? I would guess that very few here are that interested in that aspect. Rather it is a symptom of the desperate need some here to feel that the SSPX be accepted by Rome. If only the SSPX and Rome work out a deal in good American pragmatic fashion, then all will work out. Why can't we all just get along together?
Well one reason we can't is because the present Roman authorities are the apostles of a religion different from the one founded by Our Lord. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was spot on in his last interview. The negotiations have but one purpose, and that is CONVERT the Roman authorities to Tradition- not to find a practical way both can work together. Does anyone here realize that every time the pope or bishops have one of these ecumenical prayer services, that it is a violation of the first commandment and thus a mortal sin? Does anyone care about the many grave errors against the religion of Christ which this pope and his few past predecessors have disseminated by their preaching or writings?
And lest one be too hard on Bishop Williamson, a quick reading of any of Fr. Fahey's books will tell you that the great force promoting a society built on a foundation against that willed by God is that people who happen to be the one so furious at his comments. That people as an organized political and economic force has consistently fought against the Church. It is why Civilta Catolica, the once great journal in Rome, was writing at the end of Leo XIII's reign that this people should never be allowed citizenship in any Christian state. How times have changed.
You are launching into an hysterical rant over your own imaginings, nothing more.
I'm content to let others decide whether my comments constituted a rant, or indeed could objectively be qualified as "hysterical."
I really did think you were a woman. Sorry!
The Vatican has demanded that Bishop Williamson condemn his own expressed views, which were characterised as "the Negationist or Reductionist declarations on the Shoah." He is required "to distance himself, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, from his positions regarding the Shoah, unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the remission of the excommunication."
Bishop Williamson denies the existence of homicidal gas chambers and thinks that fewer than 1 million Jews died under the Nazis. That is what the Vatican calls "the Negationist or Reductionist declarations on the Shoah." The Vatican was careful to employ the word "reductionist" in order to remove wriggle-room.
Bishop Fellay condemned antisemitism and any form of approval of the actions of the Nazis. He said nothing about the means by which the Nazis killed people, nor about the numbers who died.
I regard all of that as completely clear beyond any possibility of misunderstanding. Bishop Fellay's formula does not meet the latest demand.
I still think that Bishop Fellay will decline to meet this latest demand, and I await with interest the further potential reactions/demands from those who extracted the current one from the Vatican.
You, on the other hand, have said that you expect Bishop Fellay to knock this "softball" into the stands, I presume by him or Bishop Williamson making some public statement. You have given no basis for your prediction, and it seems on the face of it to be without foundation. It would clearly require a retraction, at least implicit, of Bishop Williamson's views, which is impossible. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
A consequence of Bishop Bernard Fellay's audience with Pope Benedict XVI on August 29th 2005 was the consensus that the issues surrounding the Society of Saint Pius X should be looked at by degrees. Much speculation, and indeed rumour-mongering, has been given to the stages to follow in such a procedure to date. But a few weeks ago our Superior General gave an interview, included in full in this newsletter, in which he spelt out the precise steps the Society would want to follow.
Step one is twofold and would consist in Rome's recognising the right of every priest to celebrate the Traditional Mass without there being any conditions or restrictions, and in the lifting of the alleged excommunications against the Society's bishops.
This first step has been met with contrasting reactions. On the one hand some say that SSPX is asking, for too much. But these forget that Pope St Pius V's Bull Quo Primum which guarantees every priests'; right to celebrate the so-called Tridentine Mass in perpetuity, something which was reiterated by the commission of nine Cardinals in 1986, including the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Also as Rome has in recent times lifted the just excommunications against Martin Luther and also against the Orthodox, it should not be too much or too difficult for Rome to lift the unjust (and therefore invalid) excommunications levelled against the Society's auxiliary bishops who were consecrated in a state of necessity to uphold the Catholic Faith and ensure the Sacraments.
On the other hand, there are some who say that SSPX is asking for too little. These forget that the preliminary requirements are simply meant to create an environment more favourable to Tradition but are not of themselves a final solution.
Step two is also twofold and consists in a theological examination of Vatican II as well as an appreciation of the practical fruits of Tradition. With regard to this it is significant that the new Pope recognises that there is a real and profound crisis within the Church but claims it is due to decadent modern society, whereas faithful Catholics see Vatican II and its attempted marriage with the world as the primary cause of the loss of faith. Given Rome's attachment to Vatican II, as highlighted for instance in Benedict XVI's December 28th 2005 allocution, it becomes obvious that the practical fruits of Tradition - vocations, large Catholic families, Catholic practice - will do much to convince the Roman authorities of the need to return to Tradition for the good of the whole Church.
Step three would be a practical agreement covering the Society's canonical status only when Rome had come to realise the true cause of the crisis. For those who would want to see a practical agreement with Rome preceding the theological critique of the errors of Vatican II, such as was the case with Campos, it is important to understand that our present situation is a result of rejecting Conciliar innovations, and will only be resolved by Rome's return to sound doctrine. Consequently any hypothetical regularisation of the Society's canonical situation prior to a doctrinal resolution could only be short lived. One only has to imagine the consequences of our refusing to concelebrate a Chrismal New Mass with the local Ordinary to appreciate the fragility of a "truce" lacking doctrinal foundation...
How long these steps might take is a matter of conjecture but, as Bishop Fellay says, there is at the present time no possibility of doctrinal discussion and hence step two in its doctrinal aspect remains distant. For our part we must be faithful to Catholic principles in all aspects of our lives so that by the grace of God the fruits of Tradition might inspire Rome to return to the "patrimony of the universal Church."
Whilst invoking the intercession of the Holy Mother of God during this month of May for these pressing intentions, may we be generous also in working for the restoration of all things in Christ in our families, chapels and places of work. Never let us grow tired of doing what is right, for if we do not faint we shall reap our harvest at the opportune season (Galatians VI, 9) With every good wish and blessing this Paschaltide,
I don't know you at all. Could you point out some of the embarrassing posts I've made?
Humiliation is okay with me, I like to learn from my mistakes.
If you aren't embarrassed by charging into a forum about which you know nothing, and proceeding to make ignorant and belligerent statements, I'm not sure I can help you.
I asked you to point out where this occurred. Can you be specific?
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
But here goes, anyhow. First, read the posting guidelines you agreed to when you signed up here. There's a nice section on "annoying the membership" that you might find instructive.
I don't think I've posted anything "annoying". Can you please show me where I did such a thing and tell me why it annoyed you?
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
Second, go back and browse through the posts that I've made here, and you figure out how enamored I am of any New Springtime.
That wasn't my point. I know you don't like the "new springtime" any more that I do. My point was that your attitude appears to be one of "no resistance" (resistance to whatever your preconceived notions with respect to the current situation are) just like dismissing those who urged caution prior to Vatican II as, "prophets of doom".
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
Then come back and apologize.
I think this requires an apology:
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
With all due respect, you are paranoid.
I do owe you an apology. You're not paranoid, you're an idiot. Sorry about that.
You are launching into an hysterical rant over your own imaginings, nothing more.
I'm content to let others decide whether my comments constituted a rant, or indeed could objectively be qualified as "hysterical."
I really did think you were a woman. Sorry!
The Vatican has demanded that Bishop Williamson condemn his own expressed views, which were characterised as "the Negationist or Reductionist declarations on the Shoah." He is required "to distance himself, in an absolutely unequivocal and public manner, from his positions regarding the Shoah, unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the remission of the excommunication."
Bishop Williamson denies the existence of homicidal gas chambers and thinks that fewer than 1 million Jews died under the Nazis. That is what the Vatican calls "the Negationist or Reductionist declarations on the Shoah." The Vatican was careful to employ the word "reductionist" in order to remove wriggle-room.
Bishop Fellay condemned antisemitism and any form of approval of the actions of the Nazis. He said nothing about the means by which the Nazis killed people, nor about the numbers who died.
I regard all of that as completely clear beyond any possibility of misunderstanding. Bishop Fellay's formula does not meet the latest demand.
I still think that Bishop Fellay will decline to meet this latest demand, and I await with interest the further potential reactions/demands from those who extracted the current one from the Vatican.
You, on the other hand, have said that you expect Bishop Fellay to knock this "softball" into the stands, I presume by him or Bishop Williamson making some public statement. You have given no basis for your prediction, and it seems on the face of it to be without foundation. It would clearly require a retraction, at least implicit, of Bishop Williamson's views, which is impossible.
A consequence of Bishop Bernard Fellay's audience with Pope Benedict XVI on August 29th 2005 was the consensus that the issues surrounding the Society of Saint Pius X should be looked at by degrees. Much speculation, and indeed rumour-mongering, has been given to the stages to follow in such a procedure to date. But a few weeks ago our Superior General gave an interview, included in full in this newsletter, in which he spelt out the precise steps the Society would want to follow.
Step one is twofold and would consist in Rome's recognising the right of every priest to celebrate the Traditional Mass without there being any conditions or restrictions, and in the lifting of the alleged excommunications against the Society's bishops.
This first step has been met with contrasting reactions. On the one hand some say that SSPX is asking, for too much. But these forget that Pope St Pius V's Bull Quo Primum which guarantees every priests'; right to celebrate the so-called Tridentine Mass in perpetuity, something which was reiterated by the commission of nine Cardinals in 1986, including the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Also as Rome has in recent times lifted the just excommunications against Martin Luther and also against the Orthodox, it should not be too much or too difficult for Rome to lift the unjust (and therefore invalid) excommunications levelled against the Society's auxiliary bishops who were consecrated in a state of necessity to uphold the Catholic Faith and ensure the Sacraments.
On the other hand, there are some who say that SSPX is asking for too little. These forget that the preliminary requirements are simply meant to create an environment more favourable to Tradition but are not of themselves a final solution.
Step two is also twofold and consists in a theological examination of Vatican II as well as an appreciation of the practical fruits of Tradition. With regard to this it is significant that the new Pope recognises that there is a real and profound crisis within the Church but claims it is due to decadent modern society, whereas faithful Catholics see Vatican II and its attempted marriage with the world as the primary cause of the loss of faith. Given Rome's attachment to Vatican II, as highlighted for instance in Benedict XVI's December 28th 2005 allocution, it becomes obvious that the practical fruits of Tradition - vocations, large Catholic families, Catholic practice - will do much to convince the Roman authorities of the need to return to Tradition for the good of the whole Church.
Step three would be a practical agreement covering the Society's canonical status only when Rome had come to realise the true cause of the crisis. For those who would want to see a practical agreement with Rome preceding the theological critique of the errors of Vatican II, such as was the case with Campos, it is important to understand that our present situation is a result of rejecting Conciliar innovations, and will only be resolved by Rome's return to sound doctrine. Consequently any hypothetical regularisation of the Society's canonical situation prior to a doctrinal resolution could only be short lived. One only has to imagine the consequences of our refusing to concelebrate a Chrismal New Mass with the local Ordinary to appreciate the fragility of a "truce" lacking doctrinal foundation...
How long these steps might take is a matter of conjecture but, as Bishop Fellay says, there is at the present time no possibility of doctrinal discussion and hence step two in its doctrinal aspect remains distant. For our part we must be faithful to Catholic principles in all aspects of our lives so that by the grace of God the fruits of Tradition might inspire Rome to return to the "patrimony of the universal Church."
Whilst invoking the intercession of the Holy Mother of God during this month of May for these pressing intentions, may we be generous also in working for the restoration of all things in Christ in our families, chapels and places of work. Never let us grow tired of doing what is right, for if we do not faint we shall reap our harvest at the opportune season (Galatians VI, 9) With every good wish and blessing this Paschaltide,
Father Paul Morgan
Superior
Cindy, thank you so much for such a helpful post. I think the anxiety we are all feeling has to do with a fear that there will be a juridical establishment before the doctrinal shift. If Bishop Fellay would immediately make his firm stance to continue along this course perfectly and unequivocally clear, I might start having good night's sleeps again. God bless and thanks.
I don't know you at all. Could you point out some of the embarrassing posts I've made?
Humiliation is okay with me, I like to learn from my mistakes.
If you aren't embarrassed by charging into a forum about which you know nothing, and proceeding to make ignorant and belligerent statements, I'm not sure I can help you.
I asked you to point out where this occurred. Can you be specific?
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
But here goes, anyhow. First, read the posting guidelines you agreed to when you signed up here. There's a nice section on "annoying the membership" that you might find instructive.
I don't think I've posted anything "annoying". Can you please show me where I did such a thing and tell me why it annoyed you?
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
Second, go back and browse through the posts that I've made here, and you figure out how enamored I am of any New Springtime.
That wasn't my point. I know you don't like the "new springtime" any more that I do. My point was that your attitude appears to be one of "no resistance" (resistance to whatever your preconceived notions with respect to the current situation are) just like dismissing those who urged caution prior to Vatican II as, "prophets of doom".
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
Then come back and apologize.
I think this requires an apology:
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
With all due respect, you are paranoid.
I do owe you an apology. You're not paranoid, you're an idiot. Sorry about that.
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
If you aren't embarrassed by charging into a forum about which you know nothing, and proceeding to make ignorant and belligerent statements, I'm not sure I can help you.
More of the same, et cum spirit 220? The truth is that you can't answer me.
You find me "annoying" simply because I'm not "in tune" with your assumptions and personal positions.
et cum spirit 220 wrote:
There's one in every crowd...
Translation: Don't disagree with me.
So my initial assessment was correct:
Lanentabili Sane wrote:
My point was that your attitude appears to be one of "no resistance" (resistance to whatever your preconceived notions with respect to the current situation are) just like dismissing those who urged caution prior to Vatican II as, "prophets of doom".
More of the same, et cum spirit 220? The truth is that you can't answer me.
I've "answered" you more than amply. You are apparently unable to read and comprehend English, choosing instead to be obtuse and rude. Continue along this path, and your tenure here is likely to be short.
More of the same, et cum spirit 220? The truth is that you can't answer me.
I've "answered" you more than amply. You are apparently unable to read and comprehend English, choosing instead to be obtuse and rude. Continue along this path, and your tenure here is likely to be short.
You didn't answer anything. Btw, one who cannot read is illiterate, not obtuse and rude. One who insults another is generally considered to be rude.
As far as obtuse goes, that seems to describe the manner you addressed my earlier posts where I asked you for specifics to back up your accusations. Act like a man, et cum spirit 220.
More of the same, et cum spirit 220? The truth is that you can't answer me.
I've "answered" you more than amply. You are apparently unable to read and comprehend English, choosing instead to be obtuse and rude. Continue along this path, and your tenure here is likely to be short.
You didn't answer anything. Btw, one who cannot read is illiterate, not obtuse and rude. One who insults another is generally considered to be rude.
As far as obtuse goes, that seems to describe the manner you addressed my earlier posts where I asked you for specifics to back up your accusations. Act like a man, et cum spirit 220.
And if either of those things were being perpetrated by a Catholic Bishop, there might be some relevance to the pickle that Bsp. Williamson has gotten himself into.
It is interesting to see your actual opinion of this. Now we can understand why you hope and expect Bishop Fellay to cave into the demands from the Vatican.
The desire is father to the thought. _________________ Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum!
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
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
