SSPX Deal Still on Track? Lawyer Meets w/Francis who Loved ABL Bio

Started by FatherCekada, May 29, 2014, 05:58:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

FatherCekada

From Rorate:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/sspx-bp-fellay-on-pope-francis-he-has.html
---------------

In a visit to the French city of Fabregues on May 11 (the day following this post), the Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, Bp. Bernard Fellay, spoke at length about various matters of relevance to his congregation. The most important part was that related to the personality of Pope Francis:


With the current pope, as he is a practical man, he looks at people. What a person thinks, what he believes, is at the end a matter of indifference to him. What matters is that this person be sympathetic in his view, that he seems correct to him, one may say it like this.

And therefore he read twice Bp. Tissier de Mallerais' book on Abp. Lefebvre, and this book pleased him; he is against all that we represent, but, as a life, it pleased him. When, as a Cardinal, he was in South America, the District Superior [Fr. Christian Bouchacourt] came to ask him for an administrative favor with no relation to the Church; a visa problem, of permanent residency. The Argentine government, which is very leftwing, makes use of the concordat that was established to protect the Church to bother us quite seriously, and tells us, "you say you are Catholic, it is thus necessary for you to have the signature of the bishop in order to reside in the country." The District Superior therefore went to him to present the problem: there was an easy solution, and that would be to declare ourselves an independent church [before Civil Law], but we did not want to do it because we are Catholic. And the Cardinal told us, "no, no, you are Catholic, that is evident; I will help you;" he wrote a letter in our favor to the government, that is so leftwing that they managed to find an opposing letter by the nuncio. Therefore, a 0-0 tie. Now he is the pope, and our lawyer had the opportunity of having a meeting with the Pope. He told him that the problem was still going on with the Society, and asked him to please designate a bishop in Argentina with whom we could sort out this problem. The Pope told him, "Yes, and this bishop is myself, I promised to help, and I will do it."

I am still waiting for it, but anyway he said it, just as he said that, "those people there, they think I will excommunicate them, but they are mistaken;" he said something else that was very interesting: "I will not condemn them, and I will not stop anyone from visiting them [lit. 'd'aller chez eux'.]" Once again, I will wait to see.

FatherCekada

This story is very significant because it provides insights into the current attitudes of both sides in the ongoing SSPX/Vatican reconciliation soap opera:

1. Francis is willing to meet with Bp. Fellay's financial/legal fixer, Krah, to talk turkey, and he then even offers to help SSPX in Argentina.

He also throws SSPX another bone: Yes, he liked the fawning Abp. Lefebvre biography so much that he read it not just once, but TWICE.

Both are signals from Bergoglio that he's still interested. Like his chat with the divorced woman, the details of the conversation are intended for public consumption.

2. The story shows that Bp. Fellay is still absolutely desperate to do a deal for SSPX, and that he is willing to grovel publicly for it.

A few months ago, Fellay got on his knees before the modernist Bergoglio for the St. Marta buffet blessing. Now he drools over the bone he's been thrown: Yes, our beloved Holy Father will take a personal interest in our case, and yes, he loved the biography of our sainted founder.

The message people are intended to take away? No, Francis, can't be all bad, so prepare for further changes in the SSPX party line that will condition you to the idea of getting  integrated into the Conciliar Church.

So, the slow boiling of the frogs will continue, and few will have the sense to jump out of the pot.

Kaesekopf

Father, your bitterness and opposition to +Fellay is really... unbecoming of a Catholic cleric. 
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.

Older Salt

Father does show an intense bitterness, as well as deep seated pride for something that could be very salutary for the Church.

Very telling.

And of course he will try to shrug off his poor attempt at dragging faithful Catholics away from the Truth with a vain and sloppy attempt at humor.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.

Roland Deschain2

+Fellay is acting in accord with his belief that the current occupant of the Chair of St. Peter is the pope. If one believes that than it is a very Catholic desire to want to be in public Communion with the man.

Obviously sedevacantists do not believe that Francis is the pope. It makes little sense to argue over the specifics of the case since the two premises (sedevacante or sedeplenist) are an objective no-go from the get-go.

"To our personal enemies, according to Christ's commandment, we must forgive everything; but with the enemies of God we cannot have peace!"- Archbishop Averky

"Life is a play in which for a short time one man represents a judge, another a general, and so on; after the play no further account is made of the dignity which each one had."- St John Chrysostom

Maximilian

Quote from: FatherCekada on May 29, 2014, 06:00:51 AM

Like his chat with the divorced woman, the details of the conversation are intended for public consumption.


I could be wrong, but that's not the impression I get. It appears to me that Francis -- love him or hate him -- is very up front about what he is. I don't think he's putting on a show for public performance.

Maximilian

Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 29, 2014, 06:22:00 AM
Father, your bitterness and opposition to +Fellay is really... unbecoming of a Catholic cleric.

Bitterness, yes, opposition, no.

SixtusVI

Father Cekada,

Those previous posts shouldn't be taken lightly. They're not just some silly anti-sedevacantist bigots. Back in January I almost "jumped ship" to sedevacantism, I even embraced sedeprivationism, but I didn't end up embracing it for a variety of reasons. One of the big reasons was listening to True Restoration Radio. Your manner of speaking is very unCatholic and resembles that of somebody like Richard Dawkins. The bitterness, the sarcasm, and the uncharitableness is very unsettling. Similar things can be said about other clerics and laymen on that radio blog. I can also write about my own personal experiences with sedevacantists but that's beside the point. You make outlandish assumptions and your posts in this thread further exhibit underlying anger issues. This bitter sarcasm people keep criticizing you for, it isn't funny or witty, sarcasm is one of the ways people with subconscious anger actively enact their revenge on the object which caused them harm or obstructed their needs and desires. To put it simply, non-sedevacantists will perceive you as an angry and disobedient teenager who makes sarcastic quips at his incompetent high school teacher. The only people that will be attracted to your rhetoric are other people with anger issues, this will only further enforce the negative perceptions people have of the sedevacantist movement. You compare Bp. Fellay to a dog who "grovels" and "drools" while Pope Francis "fawns" him with doggy bones. This manner of speaking is absolutely repulsive and is just as disgraceful to the priesthood as a Novus Ordo priest who acts like a jolly buffoon. When I listen to sedevacantist clerics like yourself speak in this sort of manner, I can't reconcile it with the things I read in the Imitation of Christ. Schism is a sin against charity and the lack of charitableness is the main reason I rejected sedevacantism.

I might be some random on the internet but I hope you consider what I've written.


Gerard

I seriously doubt that Francis read the biography of LeFebvre twice.  I actually doubt he read it once.  At most I'm betting that he thumbed through a few sections of the book if he did anything. 

If he did actually read the whole biography, I would think that bodes ill for the SSPX because he certainly hasn't been converted by it and his crackdown on trad-leaning groups within the regular structure of the Church continues. 

I would be much better if tradition and the SSPX were way off his radar.

I think someone is playing Bp. Fellay on that tidbit of information. 

FatherCekada

Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 29, 2014, 06:22:00 AM
Father, your bitterness and opposition to +Fellay is really... unbecoming of a Catholic cleric.

Dear Kaesekopf and the rest,

My opposition to Bishop Fellay and SSPX is based on theological principles: The SSPX position ("Recognize someone as a true pope and resist him") simply cannot be reconciled with the traditional, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology (theology of the Church). It's hardly unbecoming to point that out.

The charges of bitterness or sarcasm are also wrong-headed here. The dog/bone image is nothing more than an argument framed with a fairly common analogy: Francis offers  SSPX a few trifles, ana Bp. Fellay excitedly presents it as a really big deal. For those in SSPX circles who fear a major sellout to the Vatican, the bishop's latest statement, combined with the  buffet incident, should cause a lot of worry.

I suspect that the reaction so far is not so much unease with the image as it is discomfort with the thought of the underlying reality: That a sell-out is indeed afoot.

As as regards "groveling," well, if you're a layman who firmly believes Francis is a true pope and you understand the obligation of a Catholic to submit to the Roman Pontiff, of course you're going to object to the verb. That I understand.

But if you believe that Francis is a modernist heresy-spewer (as Bp. Fellay himself seemed to say in a statement several months ago), you're going to wonder what in the world Bp. Fellay is doing kneeling in front of him. And why should the bishop care one whit about what such a man has to say about Abp. L's bio, still less, about whether he considers SSPX or Bp. Fellay "Catholic"? If you believe Francis is a modernist and you're in the SSPX camp, doesn't "groveling" sound exactly the right note for what Bp. Fellay did?

And SixtusVI, don't get too huffy about humor in my writings. Irony, humor, exaggeration and yes, even sarcasm were used by scripture, the Fathers, Catholic polemical tracts, saints and popes to get across various theological points. (I may write an article on this.)

I understand that what one person finds funny, another may not. So be it. But I also suspect that humor and colorful language often make a theological argument a little too clear for those who oppose it but cannot come up with a coherent answer -- and therein lies their real objection.

A blessed Ascension day to you all!

-- Fr. Cekada

Gerard

Quote from: FatherCekada on May 29, 2014, 10:38:29 AM


My opposition to Bishop Fellay and SSPX is based on theological principles: The SSPX position ("Recognize someone as a true pope and resist him") simply cannot be reconciled with the traditional, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology (theology of the Church). It's hardly unbecoming to point that out.

That's plain old wrong. 

Michael Wilson

Quote from: Gerard on May 29, 2014, 10:15:45 AM
I seriously doubt that Francis read the biography of LeFebvre twice.  I actually doubt he read it once.  At most I'm betting that he thumbed through a few sections of the book if he did anything. 

If he did actually read the whole biography, I would think that bodes ill for the SSPX because he certainly hasn't been converted by it and his crackdown on trad-leaning groups within the regular structure of the Church continues. 

I would be much better if tradition and the SSPX were way off his radar.

I think someone is playing Bp. Fellay on that tidbit of information.
Gerard,
I had the very same thought.  The whole book should have been like a cold slap in the face to Francis; proclaiming the wonders of the traditional Catholic faith?; proselytism? The traditional Latin Mass? Trashing Vatican II and the N.O.M? and he read it twice? What is he some sort of a masochist?
I loved the book, but I've only gone back and read certain sections and that was because the related topics were being discussed on a forum.
As detective Kojack was accustomed to saying: "Nevaah Haaappened".
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

FatherCekada

Quote from: Gerard on May 29, 2014, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: FatherCekada on May 29, 2014, 10:38:29 AM


My opposition to Bishop Fellay and SSPX is based on theological principles: The SSPX position ("Recognize someone as a true pope and resist him") simply cannot be reconciled with the traditional, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology (theology of the Church). It's hardly unbecoming to point that out.

That's plain old wrong.

That's what they all say — unfortunately, after forty years, they've never been able to prove it.  ;)

Older Salt

Quote from: FatherCekada on May 29, 2014, 12:27:39 PM
Quote from: Gerard on May 29, 2014, 12:03:15 PM
Quote from: FatherCekada on May 29, 2014, 10:38:29 AM


My opposition to Bishop Fellay and SSPX is based on theological principles: The SSPX position ("Recognize someone as a true pope and resist him") simply cannot be reconciled with the traditional, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology (theology of the Church). It's hardly unbecoming to point that out.

That's plain old wrong.

That's what they all say — unfortunately, after forty years, they've never been able to prove it.  ;)
And Father, you have never been able to prove that there is no Pope for the past 50 odd years.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.

FatherCekada

Quote from: Older Salt on May 29, 2014, 12:40:03 PM
Quote from: FatherCekada on May 29, 2014, 12:27:39 PM
That's what they all say — unfortunately, after forty years, they've never been able to prove it.  ;)
And Father, you have never been able to prove that there is no Pope for the past 50 odd years.

Funny thing, though -- no SSPX priest has ever made a serious attempt to do a point-by-point refutation of the two major and most-widely circulated articles that I've written on the question:

Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (1995)
http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/TradsInfall.pdf

Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Frankenchurch (2005)
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=70&catname=10

Maybe all the SSPX priests were too busy over the past twenty years.  ::)

On the other hand, perhaps one of them will try his hand at refuting my latest on the topic, which has likewise been widely circulated.

Bergoglio's Got Nothing to Lose (2014)
http://www.fathercekada.com/2014/05/07/bergoglio-hes-got-nothing-to-lose/

But as of yet, no one from the SSPX ranks has come forth to prove what Fr. Cekada "has never been able to prove."