His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI with the Bishops
COMMENT PART 1:
"JOHN XXIII AND JOHN PAUL THE GREAT ARE NOW BEATIFIED WHILE THE CORPSE OF LEFEBVRE AND THE SEDEVACANTIST LEADERS ARE ROTTING.
"THAT CHURCH OF SATAN ARE THE SCHISMATICS AND THE HERETICS. I THINK THE SSPX AND THE SEDEVACANTISTS FIT THAT DESCRIPTION.
THAT
ONE MUST BE AN INSIDER IN THE DEMONIC COUNCIL OF HELL WHERE LEFEBVRE
NOW SITS IN ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR DYING EXCOMMUNICATED."
YOU
CERTAINLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ARE YOU SAYING FR.ABE. KUNG MAGSALITA KA
PARANG HINDI KA ISANG PARI O ALAGAD NG SIMBAHAN. WALA KANG PINAGKAIBA
KAY ELISEO SORIANO. PAREHO KAYONG BASTOS MAGSALITA.
BAKIT HINDI MO SUNDIN ANG SABI NI SAN FRANCISCO ASSISI AND I QUOTE,
""Blessed
is that religious who takes no pleasure and joy except in the most holy
words and deeds of the Lord and with these leads people to the love of
God in joy and gladness. Woe to that religious who delights in idle and
frivolous words and with these provokes people to laughter."
I
AM ALSO AGAINST SEDEVECANTISM BUT NOT WITH SSPX. SSPX IS NOT
SEDEVACATIST.YOU ARE SAYING THAT SSPX AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE
WERE EXCOMMUNICATED.
You were not even updated regarding the decree
of the Vatican nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication issued from
the Congregation for Bishops on January 21, 2009.
And may I ask, who
are you to say that the good Archbishop now sits in eternal damnation?
So you think yourself as God who can judge? Did Pope Benedict XVI tell
that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was in hell? Don't you think you are not
sinning by your vain presumption and rash judgement?
Let me quote from Pope Benedict's own letter:
"So
if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is
presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority,
then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and
not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a
huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of
reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it,
and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who
"has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation?
Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and
to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in
the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being
segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to
work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what
is positive and retrievable for the whole?"
CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTIONS BY THE POPE?
June 22, 2011 4:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
COMMENT PART 2:
Pope Benedict XVI continued in his letter and I quote,
"I
myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities
which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I
saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move
beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive
energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about
a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88
schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164
religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let
them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491
priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I
do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside
various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for
Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can
we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our
pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?"
If the Pope has such a great mercy and charity toward the SSPX, who are you not to do the same??
Whatever
happened to charity in your speech? “Learn of me, because I am meek and
humble of heart” says our Lord. [St. Mt. XI:19] Do you really think
that there are no consequences to what you say on the internet? But I
say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
render an account for it in the day of judgment. [St.Mt XII:36]. Do you
think that you are really helping anyone or converting souls by the use
of bitter sarcasm and malicious words that are designed to wound rather
than to edify? charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about
words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. [2 Tim:II:14].
Are you really proud of your words? Rejoicing that you have “won” the
argument? He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and
strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies,
evil suspicions. [1Tim:VI:4] But shun profane and vain babblings: for
they grow much towards ungodliness. And their speech spreadeth like a
canker... [2Tim:II:16,17]
Are you aware of the gravity of the sin of Detraction and Calumny?
You
maybe right;But if you don’t have charity where does that leave you? St
Paul tells us that if we speak with the tongues of men and angels and
have not charity, we are become like sounding brass, like tinkling
cymbals.[1Cor XIII:1] And right now the sound of brass and tinkling
cymbal emanating from your blog is simply deafening..jpg "Fr. Abe, CRS")
Fr. Abe, CRS
said...
[YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ARE YOU SAYING FR.ABE.]
I
CERTAINLY HAVE IDEA OF WHAT I WAS SAYING. I WAS REACTING TO THAT ARTICLE
DEMONIZING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE PAULINE MASS. EXCUSE ME. WE DO
NOT TOLERATE SUCH ABOMINATIONS IN THIS BLOG.
[KUNG MAGSALITA KA PARANG HINDI KA ISANG PARI O ALAGAD NG SIMBAHAN.]
EXCUSE
ME, THE WORDS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH AGAINST THE HERETICS AND
SCHISMATICS ARE MUCH WORSE THAN THE WORDS I USED. WELL, IF YOU DON'T
WANT ME TO USE THOSE WORDS I RATHER CALL THEM BROOD OF VIPERS.
[ WALA KANG PINAGKAIBA KAY ELISEO SORIANO. PAREHO KAYONG BASTOS MAGSALITA.]
ANONG
BASTOS SA SINABI KO? MAY SINABI AKONG BASTOS? ANG KABASTUSAN AY NASA
ISIP MO. I SIMPLY CONDEMNED WHAT IS CONDEMNABLE. I SIMPLY REFERRED TO
THEM PROPERLY AND ACCORDINGLY.
[I AM ALSO AGAINST SEDEVECANTISM BUT NOT WITH SSPX.]
SEDEVACANTISM
IS MERE FRUIT OF SSPX. IT ARISES FROM THE SAME LITURGICAL REBELLION
AGAINST THE POPE AND AGAINST THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. THEY DIFFER IN
NAME BUT THEY BELONG TO THE SAME GENRE OF DEMON.
[SSPX IS NOT SEDEVACATIST.]
IN
THEIR OFFICIAL STATEMENTS THEY ARE SAYING THAT BUT IN REALITY THEIR
MEMBERS ARE SO FILLED OF POISON AGAINST THE POPE. IN ALMOST EVERY FORUMS
AND IN MANY WEBSITES OF PEOPLE ADHERING TO THEM THEY ATTACK THE POPE
AND THE COUNCIL AND THE PAULINE MASS. WE CANNOT TAKE THAT SITTING DOWN.
[YOU ARE SAYING THAT SSPX AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WERE EXCOMMUNICATED.]
YOU ARE LYING HERE. I WROTE THAT LEFEBVRE DIED EXCOMMUNICATED. AND IT IS TRUE - THE ANIMAL DIED EXCOMMUNICATED.
[You were not even updated regarding the decree of the Vatican
nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication issued from the
Congregation for Bishops on January 21, 2009.]
HA HA HA... EXCUSE
ME. THE POPE REMOVED THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS OF THE FOUR LIVING BISHOPS OF
THE SSPX BECAUSE THEY ASKED THE POPE TO REMOVE IT. BUT THE POPE DIDN'T
REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WHO DIED UNREPENTANT.
WHERE
CAN YOU FIND IN THE PAPAL DOCUMENT THAT THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE
WAS REMOVED? NOTHING. NEVER, NADA, NUNCA... IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET!!!
YOU ARE FREE TO DREAM.
[And may I ask, who are you to say that
the good Archbishop now sits in eternal damnation? So you think yourself
as God who can judge? Did Pope Benedict XVI tell that Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre was in hell? Don't you think you are not sinning by your vain
presumption and rash judgement?]
I AM APPLYING TO HIM HIS ULTRA
CONSERVATIVE INTERPRETATION OF 'OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO
SALVATION'. HE WANTS A VERY STRICT INTERPRETATION OF IT CONTRARY TO THE
MODERATE INTERPRETATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SO HE
WILL EARN THE EFFECT OF HIS OWN REBELLION AGAINST THE CHURCH BECAUSE HE
DIED OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
I AM NOT GIVING HIM JUDGMENT I AM SIMPLY RECOGNIZING THE IMPLICATION ON HIS SOUL OF HIS OWN CLAIMS.
[Let me quote from Pope Benedict's own letter:
"So
if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is
presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority,
then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and
not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a
huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of
reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it,
and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who
"has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation?
Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and
to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in
the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being
segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to
work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what
is positive and retrievable for the whole?"
CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTIONS BY THE POPE?]
THERE
IS NO NEED FOR ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF THE POPE BECAUSE I AM IN
FULL COMMUNION WITH HIM. THAT DOCUMENT WAS SIGNED BY THE POPE TO EXPRESS THE PATERNAL LOVE OF THE HOLY FATHER TO THE FOUR BISHOPS WHO ASKED HIM
TO REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION, HOPING THAT BY DOING SO THEY WILL RETURN TO THE
FOLD. BUT YEARS AFTER WHERE ARE THEY? THEY ARE STILL OUTSIDE THE FOLD.
THEY HAVE NOT RETURNED TO FULL COMMUNION WITH HIM. THE POPE IMMEDIATELY
RESPONDED BUT YOUR BISHOPS AFTER GETTING THE REMOVAL OF THE
EXCOMMUNICATIONS TREACHEROUSLY RETURNED TO THEIR OLD WAYS.
Pope Benedict XVI continued in his letter and I quote,
"I myself saw,
in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been
separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how
returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond
one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies
could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a
community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88
schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164
religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let
them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491
priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I
do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside
various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for
Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can
we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our
pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?"
[If the Pope has such a great mercy and charity toward the SSPX, who are you not to do the same??]
YES,
OF COURSE... THE POPE HAS GREAT MERCY AND CHARITY. HOW ABOUT THE SSPX
FOLLOWERS WHERE IS THEIR MERCY TOWARD POPE PAUL VI, ARCH. BUGNINI,
BLESSED JOHN XXIII, BLESSED JOHN PAUL THE GREAT AND THE VATICAN II
BISHOPS? WHERE? WHERE IS THEIR CHARITY TOWARD THE NOVUS ORDO MASS?
I'M
GLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THE MEANING OF CHARITY AND THAT YOU
HAVE WITNESSED IT FROM OUR POPE. UNFORTUNATELY WE DO NOT SEE THE SAME
CHARITY FROM SSPX. IN FACT, YOUR ARCH. FELLAY EVEN ORDERED THE SSPX
FOLLOWERS TO PRAY 'AGAINST' THE BEATIFICATION OF POPE JOHN PAUL THE
GREAT. HOW DARE HIM!!!
IF YOU WANT TO BE LOVED MAKE YOURSELVES LOVABLE.
[Whatever
happened to charity in your speech? “Learn of me, because I am meek and
humble of heart” says our Lord. [St. Mt. XI:19] Do you really think
that there are no consequences to what you say on the internet? But I
say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
render an account for it in the day of judgment. [St.Mt XII:36]. Do you
think that you are really helping anyone or converting souls by the use
of bitter sarcasm and malicious words that are designed to wound rather
than to edify? charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about
words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. [2 Tim:II:14].
Are you really proud of your words? Rejoicing that you have “won” the
argument? He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and
strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies,
evil suspicions. [1Tim:VI:4] But shun profane and vain babblings: for
they grow much towards ungodliness. And their speech spreadeth like a
canker... [2Tim:II:16,17]
Are you aware of the gravity of the sin of Detraction and Calumny?]
YES.
I AM VERY MUCH AWARE THAT IS WHY LEFEBVRE SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL HIS
DETRACTION AND CALUMNY AGAINT POPE PAUL VI AND THE VATICAN II. IF THERE
IS CALUMNY IT COMES FROM THE SSPX FOLLOWERS WHO KEEP ON ATTACKING OUR
POPES AND BISHOPS.
[You maybe right;But if you don’t have charity where does that leave you?]
OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOT JUDGMENTAL. THANK YOU.
[St Paul tells us that if we speak with the tongues of men and angels
and have not charity, we are become like sounding brass, like tinkling
cymbals.[1Cor XIII:1] And right now the sound of brass and tinkling
cymbal emanating from your blog is simply deafening.]
IT IS
DEAFENING BECAUSE YOU BELONG TO A VIRTUALLY HERETICAL AND SCHISMATIC
GROUP. YOU BELONG TO THE SOCIETY OF THE POPELESS. IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE
OF HEARTLESSNESS BETTER READ THE PUBLICATIONS AND ARTICLES COMING FROM
YOUR GROUP. THEY ARE FULL OF POISON.
Anonymous
said...
HA HA HA... EXCUSE ME. THE POPE REMOVED THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS OF THE FOUR
LIVING BISHOPS OF THE SSPX BECAUSE THEY ASKED THE POPE TO REMOVE IT.
BUT THE POPE DIDN'T REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WHO DIED
UNREPENTANT.
WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE PAPAL DOCUMENT THAT THE
EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WAS REMOVED? NOTHING. NEVER, NADA, NUNCA...
IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET!!! YOU ARE FREE TO DREAM.
Excuse me
too!!!:)I think you did not read thoroughly the decree from the
Congregation of Bishops lifting the decree of excommunication.
For your convenience, here is the part of the letter:
"On
the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father
Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of
excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay,
Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de
Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same
time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time
no longer has juridical effect". (Emp. added)
Can you not see what's obvious in that statement or you are really blinded by your hate against the SSPX?
Notwithstanding
the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops
subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the
former decree “no longer has juridical effect.” That means the former
decree ceases to legally exist.
If the decree claiming Archbishop
Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae
sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them
has been withdrawn as well. To avoid this obvious conclusion, the
language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,”
the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards
Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no
juridical effect.
The declared excommunication latae
sententiae against Archbishop Lefebvre and his trusted ally in 1988 was
removed without mentioning either of them by name.
Why was that you may ask?
Because
to do so would likely have elicited another episcopal rebellion and
perhaps you yourself will get mad considering you hate the good
Archbishop so much.
As the saying goes, " Actions speak louder than words".
Bishop
Fellay demonstrated the application of this “principle of action” in
the case of the Society through several examples, most of which have
never been previously publicized. First, he mentioned the issue of SSPX
confessions. As most Catholics know, there are certain grave sins, the
remittance of which is reserved to the Holy See alone. Under Church
law if a priest hears the confession of a person who has committed one
of these reserved sins, he is obligated to report the matter to the Holy
See within thirty days to receive permission to absolve as well as
guidance for the imposition of an appropriate penance. His Excellency
indicated that from time to time Society priests have heard such
confessions, and that, in every case, the required notification was sent
to the Holy See. In each of these cases, the response received from
the Vatican was that “all was good and licit” and that the permission
for the SSPX priest to absolve was granted.
What inference
are we to draw from this? Obviously, the Society priests can validly
hear confessions. If the Society priests lacked any form of
jurisdiction to hear confessions, the Holy See would have replied that
the penitent needed to confess to a priest with legal jurisdiction to
hear confessions. By definition, we are here dealing with grave matter
and hence mortal sin (assuming all other conditions are present). Yet
even still, the Holy See replied to the SSPX that “all is good and
licit.” The Holy See is thus making a de facto recognition of SSPX
jurisdiction to hear confessions, a position that the Society and a
number of canonical experts have maintained for years in the face of
what is obviously a difficult legal situation.
June 23, 2011 10:49 AM
Anonymous
said...
PART II:
How can we interpret this incident? First, we have a
Cardinal in the Vatican claiming that the Pope does not believe the
assertions of a document appearing to come from an official organ in the
Vatican. The document released by the Secretary of State says the
Society does not exist in the Church, and yet the Pope believes the
Society does. The Vatican then agrees to temporarily recognize the
Society in exchange for a change in venue for a SSPX ordination. How
seriously does the Pope take this lack of legal recognition when it can
be offered thus as a mere bargaining chip?
Bishop Fellay
attempted to make some sense of these contradictions but all he could
tell us is that this is the reality we have to accept for the present.
The policy of the Vatican seems to be a contradictory policy which
vacillates between “condemnation and admiration,” His Excellency noted.
He seems convinced that where the personal sentiments of Benedict XVI
himself are concerned, admiration for the SSPX is the word. He
explained that in his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, His Holiness
twice referred to Archbishop Lefebvre—first as the “venerated
Archbishop Lefebvre” and, later in the conversation, as “Archbishop
Lefebvre, this great man of the universal Church.”
So are we to
believe that the Pope believes a schismatic excommunicant is venerable
and a great man of the universal Church? This would be nonsensical. The
only logical explanation is that the Pope recognizes the Archbishop for
the loyal son of the Church that he is. His Excellency also contends
that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos expressed this same attitude when in
reference to the work of the Society, His Eminence said that “the fruits
are good hence the Holy Ghost is there.”
Now we know that Our
Lord gave us this of who is in the Church and who is not— “judge them by
their fruits.” The Holy Ghost cannot be outside the Church; hence if
He is with the Society, the Society is in the Church. The logic is
irrefutable.
How can it be that the Pope and the Vatican can
have this policy of saying one thing but doing another? How can they
allow clerics to claim confessions heard by Society priests are invalid
and then make it clear by their own actions that the SSPX confessions
are “all good and licit?” How can the Society be legally recognized for
two weeks and then cease to be thus recognized after that time? Does
this not manifest a Vatican dismissal of the seriousness of the issue of
the SSPX’s “legal” recognition?
June 23, 2011 12:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
PART III:
Benedict XVI feels that, given the situation in the
Church today and the “wolves” within, that he cannot recognize the
Society de jure. Yet, since he knows they are “inside the Church” and
“bearing good fruit” he will recognize their legitimacy de facto as much
as possible.
Benedict XVI has learned through experience that
he will lose what little influence he has over the bishops of most of
the world united in their collegial disobedience and disregard of his
authority if he goes too far in doing the right thing.
Bishop
Fellay illustrated this point with concrete examples. He recounted how,
back in 2003, a group of Cardinals, including Joseph Ratzinger, had met
to decide what was to be done about the Society and Tradition. They
agreed that an apostolic administration had to be organized in order to
give legal standing and independence to Traditional groups. There was a
disagreement about whether the Society should form the “spine” of this
structure with the other groups attached to it, or whether it should
just be set up independently within the current Ecclesia Dei
communities.
When Benedict XVI was elected in 2005, he started to
implement this plan. Bishop Fellay relayed more details of his initial
meeting with His Holiness. The meeting included Cardinal Castrillon
Hoyos, the Holy Father, Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger. The Pope
asked Cardinal Castrillon “where do things stand.” The Cardinal
replied, “Today you can recognize the Society of St. Pius X. I have
sent you a document which would do this.”
The Pope replied that
he had received the document and sent it on to the Council for the
Interpretation of Legislative Texts to determine if it was “right with
the Church.”
Bishop Fellay remarked that it must have contained
something unusual if it needed to be thus examined. Yet, for whatever
reason, the Pope was evidently blocked and so far this document—prepared
by Cardinal Hoyos and approved in principle by the Pope (and sent for
technical study)— has not seen the light of day. Why not?
Bishop
Fellay explained that in 2006 the bishops of Germany went to the
Vatican and vigorously opposed the project. So what did the Pope do?
He freed the Mass and lifted the decree of excommunication of the SSPX
bishops. We all remember what happened to the Pope after that.
Literally, all hell broke loose. The world turned on him.
Bishop
Fellay further directed our attention to the recent incident when the
Pope had appointed the conservative Fr. Gerhard Maria Wagner to become
Bishop of Linz, Austria. The Pope again was attacked in the media for
this “ultra-conservative” appointment. Clearly the Pope has concluded
that the costs of provoking disobedience and rebellion from the world’s
bishops are not worth giving de jure recognition to the Society. The
only solution is to grant recognition de facto, while the Vatican/SSPX
talks continue.
June 23, 2011 1:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
PART III:
As an aside, the details of this 2005 meeting and the
mysterious “document of recognition” that had resulted from it, put to
rest an argument which has been used by many adversaries of the Society
who claim that, although the Society had supplied jurisdiction at one
time, they lost it when they “refused the offer of ordinary
jurisdiction.” I have heard this argument myself on more than one
occasion.
Bishop Fellay pointed out, however, that he had never
actually been shown (or presented with) an actual concrete offer of
jurisdiction on the occasion of that meeting. Obviously, he had not
even seen the document the Pope had sent for review. He told us that
that document “must have been” unusual, indicating that his knowledge of
its contents had only been deduced. How can one refuse an offer of
jurisdiction that was never presented in the first place, and which is
now lost in a Vatican review process due to the intervention of the
German episcopacy? Thus, this argument fails. It is not Bishop Fellay
who “refused to accept” ordinary jurisdiction. It is the disloyal
bishops of the world who have bound the Pope’s hand, preventing him from
signing it!
So as the storm rages around him, the Holy Father
presses ahead. Contrary to the official line demanded by the liberal
bishops of the world, the Pope carries on in word and practice (lifting
SSPX excommunications, validating their confessions, permitting former
priests to exercise their priesthood, “recognizing” the Society for two
weeks) as if the Society are Catholic priests validly and licitly caring
for souls and the good of the Church. Would it be easier for the whole
Church if the Pope would just recognize officially and in writing what
he has manifested implicitly? Perhaps, but that is easy for us to say
from the comfort of our living rooms halfway across the world.
What
Bishop Fellay is trying to make clear is that living with this
dichotomy of Vatican public condemnation and quiet approval, is the
sacrifice God is asking the priests of the Society to bear for the time
being.
Benedict XVI seems to be asking the Society bishops and
priests to allow him to pretend to have this public “quarrel” with them
in order to help manage an unmanageable collegial bunch of bishops and
priests like you Fr.ABE.
June 23, 2011 1:10 PM
Ferdinand
said...
[EXCUSE ME, THE WORDS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH AGAINST THE HERETICS
AND SCHISMATICS ARE MUCH WORSE THAN THE WORDS I USED. WELL, IF YOU DON'T
WANT ME TO USE THOSE WORDS I RATHER CALL THEM BROOD OF VIPERS.]
Father Abe baka pag nabasa niya ang defense ng mga Early Church Fathers eh magulat siya.
Sometimes we have to use harsh words to shake them up so that they will come to their senses.
Fr. Abe, CRS
said...
KAYA DUMAMI ANG MGA HERETICS NGAYON DAHIL TINALIKURAN NA ANG APOLOGETICS NA SINAGAWA NG MGA FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.
Ferdinand
said...
Totoo po yan Father Abe. Heretical beliefs just kept recycling. The
Church already refuted all heretical beliefs, it is just that people who
lack knowledge of Christian history thinks that their novelties are
biblical and historical; they don't really bother to read history.
Kaya
sabi ko nga eh, kung mababasa lang nila kung paano magsalita at gumamit
ng matatalim na salita ang mga ibang apologist natin noon eh baka
magulat sila.
Fr. Abe, CRS
said...
YES, BRO. FERDINAND.
Fr. Abe, CRS
said...
HA HA HA... EXCUSE ME. THE POPE REMOVED THE EXCOMMUNICATIONS OF THE FOUR
LIVING BISHOPS OF THE SSPX BECAUSE THEY ASKED THE POPE TO REMOVE IT.
BUT THE POPE DIDN'T REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WHO DIED
UNREPENTANT.
WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE PAPAL DOCUMENT THAT THE
EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WAS REMOVED? NOTHING. NEVER, NADA, NUNCA...
IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET!!! YOU ARE FREE TO DREAM.
[Excuse me
too!!!:)I think you did not read thoroughly the decree from the
Congregation of Bishops lifting the decree of excommunication.]
IT
IS YOU WHO HAVE NOT READ IT THOROUGHLY BECAUSE YOU ARE BLIND TO THE
FACT THAT THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE WAS NOT LIFTED BY THE POPE SO
THAT LEFEBVRE DIED OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THUS BY SSPX
INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS HE IS DEPRIVED OF
SALVATION.
[For your convenience, here is the part of the letter:]
THANK YOU!
"On
the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father
Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of
excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay,
Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de
Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same
time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time
no longer has juridical effect". (Emp. added)
[Can you not see what's obvious in that statement or you are really blinded by your hate against the SSPX?]
ARE
YOU BLIND? IT IS NOWHERE STATED IN THERE THAT THE
EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE IS REMOVED AS WELL. ONLY THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS WERE REMOVED. AND THEY WERE REMOVED BECAUSE THEY
ASKED THE POPE TO REMOVE IT.
LEFEBVRE DIDN'T ASK THE POPE TO REMOVE IT THEN HE IS STILL EXCOMMUNICATED. HE IS OUTSIDE THE BODY OF CHRIST.
[Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of
the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly
states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.” That
means the former decree ceases to legally exist.]
HA HA HA... THE
FORMER DECREE CONCERNING THE FOUR OF THE SIX BISHOPS SUBJECT TO THE
FORMER DECREE. ONLY THOSE NAMED IN THE DOCUMENT ARE GIVEN THE
FORGIVENESS. OTHERS ARE STILL EXCOMMUNICATED.
YOU ARE VIOLATING THE DOCUMENT BY REMOVING THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF THOSE WHOSE PENALTIES WERE NOT REMOVED. O NO, NO, NO...
[If
the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are
excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration
with respect to them has been withdrawn as well.]
IT HAS
JURIDICAL EFFECT. THE FACT THAT THE ANIMALS, THE SSPX BISHOPS ASKED THE
POPE TO REMOVE THE EXCOMMUNICATION THEN THEY RECOGNIZED THE AUTHORITY OF
THE POPE AND THEIR EXCOMMUNICATION. THE LEGAL EFFECT CEASES WHEN IT WAS
REMOVED BUT FOR THOSE WHOSE PENALTY WERE NOT REMOVED THE
EXCOMMUNICATION IS STILL EFFECTIVE JURIDICALLY. HE HE HE... ONLY THE
POPE CAN REMOVE WHAT THE POPE DECREED. HA HA HA....
[To avoid
this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect
to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect;
or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer”
the former decree has no juridical effect.]
YOU ARE TRYING TO BE
SMART. BUT YOU ONLY SHOW IGNORANCE OF THE LAW. THE EXCOMMUNICATION WAS
REMITTED. IT MEANS THAT BEFORE IT WAS REMITTED THE EXCOMMUNICATION WAS
LEGAL, VALID AND BINDING. IT WAS EFFECTIVE. THE LEGAL EFFECT STOPPED
ONLY WHEN IT WAS REMITTED.
IF IT WAS NON EXISTENT THE WORD SHOULD BE 'DECLARED NULL AND VOID' FROM THE BEGINNING. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. HE HE HE...
[The
declared excommunication latae sententiae against Archbishop Lefebvre
and his trusted ally in 1988 was removed without mentioning either of
them by name.]
WHO TOLD YOU THAT THEY ARE REMOVED, SATAN?
THE
EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBRE AND HIS DEMONIC ALLY ARE NOT REMOVED. SO
THEY ARE STILL EFFECTIVE. THE FACT THAT THEIR PENALTY WAS NOT REMOVED
EXPLICITLY THEN IT IS STILL ACTIVE AND EFFECTIVE. WHAT HE DID IS CANONICAL DISOBEDIENCE THUS, IT IS ILLEGAL AND SINFUL.
[Why was that you may ask?
Because
to do so would likely have elicited another episcopal rebellion and
perhaps you yourself will get mad considering you hate the good
Archbishop so much.
As the saying goes, " Actions speak louder than words".]
I
HATE ALL THE TRAITORS TO THE POPE. AND I HAVE SEEN AND HEARD AND HAVE
WITNESSED FOR MYSELF HOW THE SSPX FOLLOWERS ARE ATTACKING THE POPES AND
THE BISHOPS. I CANNOT TAKE IT SITTING DOWN. IF I HATE LEFEBVRE... YES, I
DO. HE IS A TRAITOR TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL WHOSE DOCUMENTS HE
PERSONALLY SIGNED YET HE ATTACKED THEM AFTERWARDS.
CARDINAL
OTTAVIANI, CARDINAL SIRI AND OTHER CONSERVATIVE CARDINALS WHO REALLY
SPOKE AND OPPOSED IN THE COUNCIL WERE RESPECTFUL AND GENTLEMANLY. THEY
DIED LOYAL AND FAITHFUL TO THE POPE. UNLIKE LEFEBVRE WHO CREATED
EXCOMMUNICABLE ACTS.
[Bishop Fellay demonstrated the application of this “principle of
action” in the case of the Society through several examples, most of
which have never been previously publicized.]
AND WHAT ARE THESE REBELLIOUS ACTS?
[First, he mentioned the issue of SSPX confessions. As most Catholics
know, there are certain grave sins, the remittance of which is reserved
to the Holy See alone.]
OF COURSE. AND NOT ONLY THAT EVERY
PRIEST RECEIVES HIS FACULTY TO CONFESS SINS FROM THE LOCAL BISHOPS. HOW
ABOUT YOUR PRIESTS WHERE DO THEY GET THEIR FACULTY SINCE THEY ARE NOT IN
COMMUNION WITH THE LOCAL BISHOPS? AND THEY ARE NOT IN COMMUNION WITH
THE HOLY SEE EITHER?
[Under Church law if a priest hears the
confession of a person who has committed one of these reserved sins, he
is obligated to report the matter to the Holy See within thirty days to
receive permission to absolve as well as guidance for the imposition of
an appropriate penance.]
CORRECT. HOW COME YOU ARE NOT
RECOGNIZING THE FULL AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SEE OVER YOUR PRIESTS AND
BISHOPS? YOU ARE NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE VICAR OF CHRIST?
[His Excellency indicated that from time to time Society priests have
heard such confessions, and that, in every case, the required
notification was sent to the Holy See.]
THAT IS HYPOCRITICAL AND DECEPTIVE.
THE
SSPX IS NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE. YOU REFUSE TO SUBMIT
TO THE HOLY SEE AND THEN YOU WILL SEND THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION TO THE
HOLY SEE. HA HA HA... YOU ARE DOING THAT IN ORDER TO GAIN A FACADE OF
CREDIBILITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NONE.
YOU NEED THE HOLY SEE TO
APPEAR CANONICAL IN YOUR ILLICIT EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO CONFESS. EVEN
IF YOU SEND NOTIFICATION TO THE HOLY SEE YOU ARE VIOLATING THE LAW OF
THE CHURCH BECAUSE THE HOLY SEE DECLARED YOUR ADMINISTRATION OF
SACRAMENTS AS ILLICIT -- THEY ARE ILLEGAL. YOUR PRIESTS INCLUDING FELLAY
ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENTS. THUS, YOUR SO-CALLED
FIRST ACTION IS HYPOCRITICAL AND DECEPTIVE. IT IS DEMONICALLY CLEVER.
[In each of these cases, the response received from the Vatican was
that “all was good and licit” and that the permission for the SSPX
priest to absolve was granted.]
HA HA HA... LIAR. THE OFFICIAL STAND OF THE HOLY SEE IS THAT THE HOLY MASS PERFORMED BY SSPX PRIESTS ARE 'ILLICIT'.
[What inference are we to draw from this?]
THAT FELLAY IS LYING AND A HYPOCRITE.
[Obviously, the Society priests can validly hear confessions.]
VALID
BUT ILLICIT. YOU ARE JUST LIKE THE ORTHODOX PRIESTS TO WHOM YOU REFUSE
ECUMENISM. HE HE HE... THE DEMONS THAT YOU HATE HAS POSSESSED YOUR
GROUP. YOU HAVE BECOME EXACTLY LIKE THEM.
[If the Society
priests lacked any form of jurisdiction to hear confessions, the Holy
See would have replied that the penitent needed to confess to a priest
with legal jurisdiction to hear confessions.]
HA HA HA... THE HOLY SEE HAS REPLIED THAT THEY ARE 'ILLICIT'.
[By definition, we are here dealing with grave matter and hence mortal
sin (assuming all other conditions are present). Yet even still, the
Holy See replied to the SSPX that “all is good and licit.”]
ALL IS UNCANONICAL AND ILLICIT.
[The Holy See is thus making a de facto recognition of SSPX
jurisdiction to hear confessions, a position that the Society and a
number of canonical experts have maintained for years in the face of
what is obviously a difficult legal situation.]
THE HOLY SEE HAS
DE FACTO DECLARED ALL THE SACRAMENTS OF SSPX 'ILLICIT'. YOUR CLAIMS IS
ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR HALLUCINATIONS OR DELUSIONS OF FELLAY WHICH YOU
SHARED VOLUNTARILY. HA HA HA...
YOUR SACRAMENTS ARE ILLICIT. ILLICIT. ILLICIT.
ednard Kim
said...
[Obviously, the Society priests can validly hear confessions.]
VALID
BUT ILLICIT. YOU ARE JUST LIKE THE ORTHODOX PRIESTS TO WHOM YOU REFUSE
ECUMENISM. HE HE HE... THE DEMONS THAT YOU HATE HAS POSSESSED YOUR
GROUP. YOU HAVE BECOME EXACTLY LIKE THEM.
Correction father
Abe, The Society's confession are Null and void because they do not have
faculty as expressed by the local ordinary of the diocese:
"The
priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but
suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions
because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious
institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law,
canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic
Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop.
"Concretely,
this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St.
Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The
Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest
enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that
is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It
remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that
the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to
absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is
valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)
Monday of Holy Week Anno Domini 2008
In summary, Masses of the SSPX are valid but illicit but the sacrament of marriage and penance are null and void
June 24, 2011 1:48 PM
Fr. Abe, CRS
said...
[How can we interpret this incident? First, we have a Cardinal in the
Vatican claiming that the Pope does not believe the assertions of a
document appearing to come from an official organ in the Vatican. The
document released by the Secretary of State says the Society does not
exist in the Church, and yet the Pope believes the Society does. The
Vatican then agrees to temporarily recognize the Society in exchange for
a change in venue for a SSPX ordination. How seriously does the Pope
take this lack of legal recognition when it can be offered thus as a
mere bargaining chip?]
THE BEST INTERPRETATION IS THAT THIS IS
ONLY A PRODUCT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. THE POPE RECOGNIZES THE FACT THAT
THE SSPX IS NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH HIM. SO HE IS WORKING HARD TO
INVITE THE SSPX TO RETURN TO THE FOLD. THAT IS THE FACT.
[Bishop
Fellay attempted to make some sense of these contradictions but all he
could tell us is that this is the reality we have to accept for the
present.]
THE CONTRADICTION IS PRESENT ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION.
THE FACT IS THAT THE SSPX IS NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE POPE. THE
POPE HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER IT BECAUSE FELLAY IS ITS HIGHEST AUTHORITY
NOT THE POPE.
[The policy of the Vatican seems to be a
contradictory policy which vacillates between “condemnation and
admiration,” His Excellency noted.]
THE POLICY OF VATICAN IS VERY
CLEAR. TO BE A CATHOLIC ONE MUST BE IN COMMUNION WITH THE SUCCESSOR OF
PETER - THE VICAR OF CHRIST. THAT IS VATICAN I.
LEFEBVRE
DISOBEYED THE POPE CANONICALLY AND THEREFORE HE WAS EXCOMMUNICATED. THE
FOUR OTHERS WERE RELEASED FROM EXCOMMUNICATION YET THEY ARE NOT YET IN
FULL COMMUNION BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO THE POPE.
[He
seems convinced that where the personal sentiments of Benedict XVI
himself are concerned, admiration for the SSPX is the word.]
HA HA HA... YOU ARE FREE TO HALLUCINATE. WHAT ADMIRATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? HA HA HA...
[He explained that in his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, His
Holiness twice referred to Archbishop Lefebvre—first as the “venerated
Archbishop Lefebvre”]
HA HA HA... HEARSAY. IN FACT, IT WAS
RATZINGER WHO WAS THE RIGHT HAND OF BLESSED JOHN PAUL THE GREAT WHEN
THAT TRAITOROUS ANIMAL WAS EXCOMMUNICATED. LEFEVBRE TREACHEROUSLY
DECEIVED CARDINAL RATZINGER BY NOT HONORING THE AGREEMENT THAT HE
SIGNED.
IF LEFEBVRE IS VENERATED THAT VENERATION HAPPENS IN HELL
NOT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE VENERATION OF CATHOLICS ARE BEFORE THE
TOMBS OF BLESSED JOHN XXIII AND BLESSED JOHN PAUL THE GREAT. THE TOMB OF LEFEBVRE IS ROTTING.
[and, later in the conversation, as “Archbishop Lefebvre, this great man of the universal Church.”]
HA HA HA... THESE ARE PRODUCTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION. HA HA HA...
[So are we to believe that the Pope believes a schismatic excommunicant is venerable and a great man of the universal Church?]
HA
HA HA... DO YOU THINK THAT WE SHALL BELIEVE YOUR CONCOCTED STORY OF THE
POPE CALLING THAT EXCOMMUNICATED ANIMAL 'VENERABLE'? NO, NO, NO... SEND
YOUR DECEPTIONS SOMEWHERE ELSE. HA HA HA... RATZINGER IS ONE OF THOSE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT EXCOMMUNICATION DECREE AGAINST LEFEBVRE.
[This would be nonsensical.]
YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.
[The only logical explanation is that the Pope recognizes the Archbishop for the loyal son of the Church that he is.]
THE POPE EXCOMMUNICATED LEFEBVRE AND HAS NOT RELEASED HIM FROM SUCH.
[His Excellency also contends that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos expressed
this same attitude when in reference to the work of the Society, His
Eminence said that “the fruits are good hence the Holy Ghost is there.”]
HA HA HA... THE HOLY SPIRIT IS PRESENT IN THE CHURCH BUT NOT IN LEFEBVRE WHO WAS A LIAR AND DECEIVER AND A DISOBEDIENT FOOL.
[Now
we know that Our Lord gave us this of who is in the Church and who is
not— “judge them by their fruits.” The Holy Ghost cannot be outside the
Church; hence if He is with the Society, the Society is in the Church.
The logic is irrefutable.]
HA HA HA... YOUR LOGIC IS BASED ON
DELUSIONS AND IMAGINATIONS. HA HA HA... YOU ARE INVENTING LIES AND YOU
ARE SO CONVINCED BY YOUR LIES THAT EVEN YOU HAVE STARTED THINKING THAT
IT IS TRUE. HA HA HA... YOU ARE FRYING YOURSELF IN YOUR OWN MEAT-OIL. HA
HA HA... THE HOLY SPIRIT IS PROMISED BY JESUS TO THE BLESSED PETER AND
HIS SUCCESSOR. NOT TO ANY WACKY OLD FOOL LIKE LEFEBVRE WHO WAS
EXCOMMUNICATED. DREAM ON. HA HA HA...
[How can it be that the Pope and the Vatican can have this policy of saying one thing but doing another?]
HA
HA HA... THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING ARE NOT
VATICAN POLICY BUT INVENTED STORIES. HA HA HA... YOUR FELLAY IS A LIAR
AND YOU HAVE BELEIVED HIS LIES AND THEREFORE YOU ARE WALLOWING IN YOUR
LIES JOINED TOGETHER.
DON'T INCLUDE US IN YOUR LIES. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU UNLESS YOU RETURN TO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE.
[How can they allow clerics to claim confessions heard by Society
priests are invalid and then make it clear by their own actions that the
SSPX confessions are “all good and licit?”]
ACTUALLY, THE PROPER
TERM IS THAT YOUR SACRAMENT OF PENANCE IS NULL AND VOID. AND THE CLAIM
OF FELLAY THAT THE HOLY SEE ACCEPTS THE CONFESSIONS OF THE SSPX IS A
MYTH OR RATHER HEARSAY. HA HA HA...
[How can the Society be legally recognized for two weeks and then cease to be thus recognized after that time?]
HA HA HA... WHO RECOGNIZED YOU, SATAN? HA HA HA...
[Does this not manifest a Vatican dismissal of the seriousness of the issue of the SSPX’s “legal” recognition?]
HA HA HA... VERY PATHETIC. HA HA HA... HA HA HA...
[Benedict XVI feels that, given the situation in the Church today and
the “wolves” within, that he cannot recognize the Society de jure. Yet,
since he knows they are “inside the Church” and “bearing good fruit” he
will recognize their legitimacy de facto as much as possible.]
HA
HA HA... TRYING HARD TO BE THE SPOKESPERSON OF THE POPE. HA HA HA...
THE SSPX ARE THE 'WOLVES' OUTSIDE THE CHURCH WHERE THERE IS NO
SALVATION.
[Benedict XVI has learned through experience that he
will lose what little influence he has over the bishops of most of the
world united in their collegial disobedience and disregard of his
authority if he goes too far in doing the right thing.]
POPE
BENEDICT KNOWS THAT HE IS THE POPE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH EXCEPT
OF THE SSPX OF WHICH HE HAS NO JURIDICAL AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
IN FULL COMMUNION WITH HIM. THESE LITURGICAL ANIMALS ARE USING HIS NAME
DURING THEIR MASSES TO HAVE A SEMBLANCE OF CREDIBILITY YET THEY ARE
ATTACKING HIM AND DO NOT RECOGNIZE HIS AUTHORITY.
[Bishop Fellay illustrated this point with concrete examples.]
YEAH, ANOTHER INVENTED STORIES ONCE AGAIN. HA HA HA...
[He recounted how, back in 2003, a group of Cardinals, including Joseph
Ratzinger, had met to decide what was to be done about the Society and
Tradition.]
RATZINGER IS THE CHIEF PROPENENT OF TRADITION IN THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AFTER POPE JOHN PAUL THE GREAT DURING HIS
LIFETIME. LEFEBVRE FOLLOWED THE DEMONIC TRADITION OF LUTHER, THAT IS,
DEFIANCE AND REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE. THE SAME DEMON
THAT POSSESSED LUTHER ACTUALLY POSSESSED LEFEBVRE ALSO. THEY ARE BIRDS
OF THE SAME FEATHER.
[ They agreed that an apostolic
administration had to be organized in order to give legal standing and
independence to Traditional groups.]
HA HA HA... ANOTHER HALLUCINATORY STORY. HA HA HA... IT IS SIMPLY PREGNANT WITH MALICE BUT BEREFT OF CREDIBILITY.
[
There was a disagreement about whether the Society should form the
“spine” of this structure with the other groups attached to it, or
whether it should just be set up independently within the current
Ecclesia Dei communities.]
HA HA HA... IT IS VERY STRIKING THAT
DURING THOSE TIME THAT FELLAY WAS AN EXCOMMUNICATED ANIMAL AND SUDDENLY
HE WAS PRIVY TO THE SECRET MEETINGS OF CARDINALS. HA HA HA... SPEAKING
OF THE DEVIL. HA HA HA...
[When Benedict XVI was elected in 2005, he started to implement this
plan. Bishop Fellay relayed more details of his initial meeting with His
Holiness.]
THE POPE IS HIS HOLINESS WHEN YOU NEED HIM EH. BUT
WHEN YOU DON'T NEED HIM HE BECOMES 'MODERNIST'. YOU SEE HOW HYPOCRITICAL
YOU ARE. VERY DECEPTIVE.
[The meeting included Cardinal
Castrillon Hoyos, the Holy Father, Bishop Fellay and Father
Schmidberger. The Pope asked Cardinal Castrillon “where do things
stand.” The Cardinal replied, “Today you can recognize the Society of
St. Pius X. I have sent you a document which would do this.”]
HA HA HA... ANOTHER HALLUCINATION. HA HA HA...
[The
Pope replied that he had received the document and sent it on to the
Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts to determine if it
was “right with the Church.”]
OK, I'M ENJOYING YOUR DREAMS. C'MMON JUST CONTINUE. HE HE HE....
[Bishop
Fellay remarked that it must have contained something unusual if it
needed to be thus examined. Yet, for whatever reason, the Pope was
evidently blocked and so far this document—prepared by Cardinal Hoyos
and approved in principle by the Pope (and sent for technical study)—
has not seen the light of day. Why not?]
BECAUSE IT EXIST ONLY IN YOUR MIND AND IN THE LYING MOUTH OF FELLAY. HA HA HA....
[Bishop
Fellay explained that in 2006 the bishops of Germany went to the
Vatican and vigorously opposed the project. So what did the Pope do? He
freed the Mass and lifted the decree of excommunication of the SSPX
bishops. We all remember what happened to the Pope after that.
Literally, all hell broke loose. The world turned on him.]
THE
WORLD PROTESTED BECAUSE THE WORLD KNOWS HOW EVIL THE SSPX ARE. THE WORLD
KNOWS THAT THE SSPX ARE LIARS AND DECEIVERS LIKE THEIR FOUNDER, THE
EXCOMMUNICATED WACKY OLD FOOL LEFEBVRE. IF THEIR LEADER WAS A TRAITOR,
THEN THE FOLLOWERS WILL DO THE SAME. SUDDENLY THE PRO-NAZI STATEMENT OF
WILLIAMSON APPEARED AND THE HOLY FATHER WROTE IN HIS BOOK 'THE LIGHT OF
THE WORLD' THAT IF HE HAD KNOWN THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE ACTED AS SUCH.
THE POPE WAS GENEROUS BUT THE SSPX ARE NOT. THEY ARE LIARS AND DECEIVERS AND ARE DISOBEDIENT LOT. HE HE HE....
[Bishop
Fellay further directed our attention to the recent incident when the
Pope had appointed the conservative Fr. Gerhard Maria Wagner to become
Bishop of Linz, Austria. The Pope again was attacked in the media for
this “ultra-conservative” appointment.]
WELL, AT LEAST IT WAS
ONLY CRITICISM BUT WHAT LEFEBVRE DID WAS NOT ONLY CRITICISM BUT
REBELLION. YOU ARE TRYING TO APPEAR AS IF YOU LOVE THE POPE... YOU ARE
LIKE A PROSTITUTE TRYING TO APPEAR AS VIRGIN. HA HA HA... YOU DISAGREE
WITH THE OTHER SIDE BUT YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING. YOU ARE CRYING
BABIES IF YOUR REQUESTS ARE NOT GRANTED.
[Clearly the Pope has
concluded that the costs of provoking disobedience and rebellion from
the world’s bishops are not worth giving de jure recognition to the
Society.]
THE POPE BEING A MAN OF WISDOM KNOWS THAT HE HAS TO
CONSULT THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD. THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD DISLIKE THE
SSPX BECAUSE OF ITS OWN FAULT. YOU TAUGHT THEM TO HATE YOU. IT WAS ALSO
MY EXPERIENCE. I WAS CELEBRATING THE TLM AND THE SSPX FOLLOWERS DID
NOTHING BUT TO CRITICIZE THE POPE, THE BISHOPS, THE COUNCIL... YOU ARE
DEMONIC IN YOUR CRITICISMS. IF YOU WANT RESPECT THEN EARN IT. IF YOU
WANT TO BE LOVED MAKE YOURSELVES LOVABLE. IF YOU ARE HATED THEN PUT THE
BLAME ON YOURSELVES BECAUSE YOU CAUSED IT.
[The only solution is to grant recognition de facto, while the Vatican/SSPX talks continue.]
ONLY
A FOOL WILL GRANT RECOGNITION TO LITURGICAL AND CANONICAL SNAKES LIKE
YOU. HE HE HE... YOU CAN DECIEVE SOME PEOPLE SOMETIME BUT YOU CANNOT
DECEIVE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. WE ALREADY KNOW YOUR TRUE COLORS.
[As an aside, the details of this 2005 meeting and the mysterious “document of recognition” that had resulted from it,]
IT
IS THE LYING MOUTH OF FELLAY AND YOUR UNQUESTIONING BELIEF IN HIS
FABLES THAT IS MYSTERIOUS. HE HE HE... YOU STUPIDLY ACCEPT EVERY STORIES
FLOWING FROM HIS MOUTH AND THEN YOU ARE ASKING WHY YOU ARE IN A
DILEMMA. HA HA HA...
[put to rest an argument which has been
used by many adversaries of the Society who claim that, although the
Society had supplied jurisdiction at one time, they lost it when they
“refused the offer of ordinary jurisdiction.” I have heard this argument
myself on more than one occasion.]
IT DOES NOT REST THERE. AS
LONG AS THE SSPX IS NOT IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE POPE IT IS NOT PART
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. STOP YOUR GOBBLEDYGOOK. YOU ARE COMPLICATING
THINGS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE DEMONIC DEFIANCE OF YOUR GROUP. NO AMOUNT
OF DEODORANT CAN MAKE THE SSPX SMELL GOOD. AND INVENTING STORIES
THROUGH THE MOUTH OF FELLAY IS BUT A PIECE OF GARBAGE THAT DOES NOTHING
TO CHANGE THAT FACT.
[Bishop Fellay pointed out, however, that he
had never actually been shown (or presented with) an actual concrete
offer of jurisdiction on the occasion of that meeting. Obviously, he had
not even seen the document the Pope had sent for review.]
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO SEE THEY NEVER SEE ANYTHING. ONLY THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO SEE CAN RECOGNIZE SUCH A DOCUMENT.
[He told us that that document “must have been” unusual, indicating that his knowledge of its contents had only been deduced.]
YOU
SEE. HE HAS NOT SEEN THE DOCUMENT AND SUDDENLY NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT
HE CLAIMS THAT THE DOCUMENT IS UNUSUAL. HA HA HA... YOU AND FELLAY ARE
BEING CAUGHT IN YOUR OWN MOUTHS.
[How can one refuse an
offer of jurisdiction that was never presented in the first place, and
which is now lost in a Vatican review process due to the intervention of
the German episcopacy?]
IF THERE IS NO OFFER OF JURISDICTION WHY
ARE YOU COMPLAINING? DO YOU WANT A JURISDICTION OR NOT? HE HE HE... IF
YOU WANT A JURISDICTION SIMPLE. JUST ANNOUNCE TO THE WHOLE WORLD THAT
YOU SUBMIT WILLINGLY AND ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY CONDITION TO THE
AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY FATHER THE POPE AND THAT'S IT. HE HE HE...
[Thus, this argument fails.]
THE
ARGUMENT REMAINS UNREFUTED. IT IS VALID STILL AND EFFECTIVE. THE SSPX HAS
NO JURISDICTION. THE ANIMALS IN THE ZOO ARE IN BETTER STATE THAN THE
SSPX BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHERE THEY BELONG. THE SSPX ARE LIKE WILD ANIMALS
IN A RAMPAGE. THEY ARE CHAOTIC, DISORDER AND UNREASONABLE.
[It
is not Bishop Fellay who “refused to accept” ordinary jurisdiction. It
is the disloyal bishops of the world who have bound the Pope’s hand,
preventing him from signing it!]
HA HA HA... VERY NICE SLOGAN.
THE POPE'S HANDS ARE PREVENTED. HA HA HA... THE HAND OF THE POPE CANNOT
BE PREVENTED BY ANYONE. HE CAN JUST ANNOUNCE SOMETHING SURPRISINGLY ON
VATICAN RADIO AND TV OR IN SECULAR BROADCAST IN A LIVE PRESS CONFERENCE
AND THE BISHOPS CAN DO NOTHING TO CHANGE HIS WILL. ONLY IDIOTS WILL
POSIT THAT THE HAND OF THE POPE IS PREVENTED. THAT IS MORE PROPER FOR
JAMES BOND MOVIES OR THE NOVELS OF DAN BROWN INSTEAD OF THE PAPAL
AUTHORITY IN THE VATICAN. HE HE HE...ACTUALLY WHEN THE POPE ISSUED THE SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM MANY BISHOPS WERE OPPOSED BUT SINCE IT WAS OFFICIALLY RELEASED THEY CANNOT FORCE THE POPE TO SCRATCH IT. HE HE HE...
[So as the storm rages around him, the Holy Father presses ahead.]
THE
POPE IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STORM. HE IS ON THE SEAT OF PETER. HE
IS ON THE BARQUE OF PETER. NO STORM CAN HARM HIM. HE KNOWS THAT. BECAUSE
THE LORD JESUS ASSURED HIM THAT THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL
AGAINT HIM.
BUT THE GATES OF HELL HAS PREVAILED ON SSPX. IT HAS
POSSESSED LEFEBVRE TO REBEL AGAINST THE POPE AND THAT REBELLION SPREADS
LIKE THE ONE OF LUTHER. THE SSPX IS A CANCER IN THE BODY OF CHRIST.
THANK GOD IT IS CURABLE BECAUSE OF THE DIVINE PROMISE OF THE MESSIAH.
[Contrary to the official line demanded by the liberal bishops of the world,]
THE
BISHOPS OF THE WORLD ARE THE TRUE CATHOLICS. THE SSPX ARE THE LIBERALS.
BECAUSE LIBERALISM IS ROOTED IN REFUSAL TO OBEY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
CHURCH AND THAT IS WHAT LEFEBVRE DID IN HIS DEMONIC REBELLION. THE
BISHOPS SOMETIMES DISAGREE WITH THE POPE BUT AT THE END THEY OBEY AND
SUBMIT TO THE POPE.
[ the Pope carries on in word and practice (lifting SSPX excommunications,]
BECAUSE THEY REQUESTED FOR IT. HE HE HE...
[validating their confessions,]
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR...
[permitting former priests to exercise their priesthood,]
LIAR,LIAR, LIAR...
[“recognizing” the Society for two weeks)]
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR... HA HA HA...
[as if the Society are Catholic priests validly and licitly caring for souls and the good of the Church.]
THE SSPX ARE ONE OF THE EVIL IN THE CHURCH WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED.
[Would it be easier for the whole Church if the Pope would just
recognize officially and in writing what he has manifested implicitly?]
NO.
BECAUSE RECOGNITION MUST COME AFTER THE SSPX SUBMIT THEMSELVES
COMPLETELY AND WILLINGLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE
VICAR OF CHRIST. OTHERWISE IT IS USELESS TO RECOGNIZE THEM.
[Perhaps, but that is easy for us to say from the comfort of our living rooms halfway across the world.]
WE
LIVE THAT MATTER TO THE POPE AND THOSE HE HAS ASSIGNED FOR THAT MATTER.
I WILL ONLY BELEIVE THE STATEMENTS -- OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OF MY POPE
AND THE HOLY SEE ON THAT MATTER, NOT THE FABLES, STORIES OF A FOOL LIKE
FELLAY.
[What Bishop Fellay is trying to make clear is that
living with this dichotomy of Vatican public condemnation and quiet
approval, is the sacrifice God is asking the priests of the Society to
bear for the time being.]
THERE IS NO SACRIFICE FOR YOUR PRIESTS
BUT MERELY PAIN CAUSED BY YOUR SIN OF BEING THE LATEST 'PROTESTANTS' IN
THE CHURCH AS LUTHER DID. YOUR PAIN IS SELF-INFLICTED.
[Benedict
XVI seems to be asking the Society bishops and priests to allow him to
pretend to have this public “quarrel” with them in order to help manage
an unmanageable collegial bunch of bishops and priests like you Fr.ABE.]
HA
HA HA... I DO NOT TROUBLE TO MY POPE AND MY BISHOP UNLIKE YOUR ANIMAL
BISHOPS FROM LEFEBVRE TO FELLAY. I NEVER FORM A SOCIETY NOT IN COMMUNION
WITH MY BISHOP AND MY POPE.
I SUBMIT MYSELF TO POPE BENEDICT
XVI, WILLINGLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AS MY POPE - THE VICAR OF CHRIST AND
THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER. MAY THE LORD GRANT ME THE GRACE TO REMAIN
FAITHFUL UNTIL DEATH AND NOT SUFFER THE ABOMINABLE CONDEMNATION OF
EXCOMMUNICATION SUFFERED BY THE DOGS AND LEECHES OF LUCIFER LIKE MARCHEL
LEFEBVRE. AMEN.
No comments:
Post a Comment