+
JMJ
Obviously there's lots of events right now.
First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay. Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'.
Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family.
I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further).
Much to pray for.
P^3
Updated Response to "Unknown's" questions:
- Why won't you watch the interview yourself.
- My time is precious and as the interview has no real bearing on the Rome / SSPX relations I do not believe it has the value that others may ascribe to it.
- Certainly your observations would be more credible.
- The credibility of the observations are not made more credible by my taking it upon myself to add to the chatter.
- Further, if I did put forth my observations they would be just as subjective as the other observations.
- Credibility of 'observations' is determined by the alignment with reality - not what one 'thinks' of the interview.
- How can you be taken seriously?
- By giving cogent arguments the rationally support my conclusions.
- How else? By starting a you-tube channel and pontificating?
- The sources you consulted could be biased and tainted with error?
- The ones that I referenced, I have observed for some time and noted their reasoning processes are clear etc. Hence I believe them to be trustworthy.
- How can you trust them?
- Simple, trust is normally (at least for Catholics) provided at the onset.
- Once trust is betrayed (objectively) is there cause for it to be withdrawn.
- Has anyone else asked about this interview?
- Nope. Just you.
Trust is an interesting concept.
Some trust:
- Some trust Bishop Fellay, some don't.
- Some trust Bishop Williamson, some don't.
The question who is more trustworthy?
Objectively?
Objectively, Bishop Fellay has:
- Not deviated from Church Teaching - only what the resistance falsely believe to be Church Teaching.
- By Extension he has not deviated from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre.
- Even the famous doctrinal declaration that he prepared is consistent with that of Archbishop Lefebvre.
- In the end he was asked to compromise and what was the result? He did not.
Objectively, Bishop Williamson has:
- Broken his vow to obey the Superior General of the SSPX
- Leaked private documents and appears to have had a hand in leaking the letter between the bishops.
- Predicted the compromise of the SSPX in various forms etc. It is now four years and no compromise has occurred.
- Deviated from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre on a number of elements - most glaringly the 'Poem of the Man-God' not to mention the doctrine of the Church.
Remember this is objectively - not what people 'believe' etc.
So by these observations - Bishop Fellay is more worthy of trust that Bishop Willimson.
... and I didn't even get started on Fr. Pfeiffer et al.
P^3
What are your thoughts regarding Bsp Fellay' recent interview on the Conflict Zone.
ReplyDeleteWell 'unknown' let's see:
ReplyDeleteIrregardless of what the internet denizens say they 'would have said' if asked the same questions, I am interested in what Bishop Fellay did say.
Having not watched the interview, I am restricted to the reports of others. What he did do was defend the teaching of the Church with regards to the various attacks with patience, kindness and prudence.
Should we expect something else?
As to the reasoning for accepting to grant the interview I propose the following. The junk yard dog was going to do his story no matter what. In this case it would be better to be on camera in a composed manner rationally answering the pointed leading questions that allow them to say: They (SSPX) declined to give us an interview to answer these questions.
All told, at least he didn't question some historical element.
P^3
Why won't you watch the interview yourself. Certainly your observations would be more credible. How can you be taken seriously? The sources you consulted could be biased and tainted with error? How can you trust them?Has anyone else asked about this interview?
DeleteAhh unknown the suspician of any and all sources - the root of conspiracy theorists.
DeleteI will add my answer to your questions in the original posts.
P^3
I think you should just watch the interview and stop passing me off as a conspiracy nutcase!
DeleteWhy not provide me with some reason to watch the video? What do you think about it?
DeleteP^3
I have no head in the game you're playing here. I attend a mass by the Institute of Christ the King, an Ecclesia Dei group.So it go in any direction; it won't matter to me either way. But still you have not made yourself clear why you will not watch the video. So clearly you are a Bsp Fellay supporter no matter what.
DeleteThe difference is that I gave my reason, it just has not proven acceptable to yourself. You ask my reason and I gave it.
DeleteWhen I asked for a reason I meant from the material within the interview.
Concerning the trust, I used a handy example of trust, because I suspected you to be a resistor.
P3
I already did but you chose to discount those as coming from a conspirator! Your loss.
ReplyDeleteSee above.
DeleteP3
One question is whether or not Having not watched the interview, I am restricted to the reports of others. What he did do was defend the teaching of the Church with regards to the various attacks with patience, kindness and prudence."
ReplyDeleteDid bp fellay do as reported or not?
Pê
Since you do not like to listen to your leader's voice I guess the subject is closed for trying to get your personal opinion on his interview. Do you mind if I change things? Thanks.
DeleteOnce you (SSPX) get recognized by Rome and are put under the regulations of the ED concerning the Summorum Pontificum will you accept the legitimacy of the NO mass like all the other groups under the ED. Remember this is a yes or no answer to this question as the statement below is quite clear.
PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI April 30 2011
INSTRUCTION
on the application of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI given Motu Proprio
II. The Responsibilities of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
9. The Sovereign Pontiff has conferred upon the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei ordinary vicarious power for the matters within its competence, in a particular way for monitoring the observance and application of the provisions of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (cf. art. 12).
19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.
you can say
Delete"the real reason you have not seen the interview is that you have read the reviews from both sides and you have a fear that the negative reviews are right"
"Once you (SSPX) get recognized by Rome and are put under the regulations of the ED concerning the Summorum Pontificum will you accept the legitimacy of the NO mass like all the other groups under the ED. Remember this is a yes or no answer to this question as the statement below is quite clear."
DeleteActually, it isn't a 'yes or no' because of the ambiguity of the statement, a lack of understanding of the position of the SSPX and error concerning the proposed canonical structure being discussed.
My understanding is that the structure offered to the SSPX is not 'under' the ED communities. In fact, it was reported that the it was considered having the SSPX as the structure under which all ED communities would report. As such, the statement of the ED would be completely irrelevant as the SSPX would not be 'under' the ED.
Second the 'validity or legitimacy' of the Novus Ordo is a moot point given that the SSPX holds that (with the normal conditions) the Novus Ordo is valid.
It further was asserted that it was legitimately promulgated.
Now if BXVI has stated explicitly the necessity to accept the Novus Ordo Rite is a 'Good' thing - well that would be a no.
P^3
Delete"the real reason you have not seen the interview is that you have read the reviews from both sides and you have a fear that the negative reviews are right"
Nope.
What I said above is what I meant. Please don't try to place your thoughts inside my head.
P^3
Regardless would you subject yourself to such an interview? He would have had to know how he would be treated.
ReplyDeleteBoth questions are loaded with assumptions.
DeleteWould I personally (as a private person) accept to be interviewed in such a situation no. Not the least of which being that I would not have the patience to deal with such a person in a charitable manner.
Now would Bishop Fellay have known how he would have been treated? We don't know - literally. Whatever the context, how did Bishop Fellay respond to the interview questions - with or without charity - with or without adherence to Church Teaching?
P^3
Just a quick note.
ReplyDeleteI don't find the interview in question with a rabid reporter to be relevant to:
a. the crisis of the Church
b. the Doctrine or Dogma of the Church
c. relations between Rome and the SSPX
That is what I am interested in and therefore since I have numerous demands on my time, and the interview is outside of that scope - I literally don't have any interest in 'that' specific interview.
P^3
After reading all your responses I have determined that I cannot provide a reason sufficient enough to make you overcome the fear you have of watching Bishop Fellay in that interview.
DeleteWhat do I think about it? I'll tell you when you tell me after you watch it.
Assumption: the it is fear that prevents me from watching the interview in question.
DeleteI have noticed that when one person accuses another of a fault ... The accuser is themselves guilty of the same fault.
Have you read the latest exhortation?
If not, what do you fear????
P3
Just a quick note.
DeleteI don't find the interview in question with a rabid reporter to be relevant to:
a. the crisis of the Church
b. the Doctrine or Dogma of the Church
c. relations between Rome and the SSPX
That is what I am interested in and therefore since I have numerous demands on my time, and the interview is outside of that scope - I literally don't have any interest in 'that' specific interview.
You just undermined your whole argument. Now you are saying that Bsp Fellay was being irrelevant in granting it. Which is nothing a resistor would say!
Again, it is important to cease assuming that you know what I am thinking and placing your words in my mouth.
DeleteMy argument is that I (ie Tradical) am not interested in the interview because it is not on the noted topics. What Bishop Fellay's interest was is up to him and I make no assumptions as to why he granted the interview.
P^3
So would you also disregard arch lefebvre's interviews? And as far as being a loyalist to bsp Fellay aren't you the slightest bit interested in defending him by taking this reporter down?you only interested in fighting the resistors whose only aim is to save bsp Fellay's reputation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment doesn't make sense. Could you rephrase it???
DeleteP3
Read it again.
DeleteSo the resistors aim is to save Bishop Fellay's reputation - don't think so ...
DeleteIf he listens to them ,he may.
DeleteKnown Unknown: What do you mean when you say 'resistors'?
ReplyDeleteP^3
I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, (isn’t that right,) did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.
Delete(Archbishop Lefebvre September 22, 1988)
That is a non answer - assuming that 'unknown' is the same 'unknown' who posted earlier.
DeleteP^3