[dohtml]<object id="mediaplayer535980946" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="576" height="432"><param name="movie" value="http://www.gloria.tv/media/300906/embed/true/controls/false" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.gloria.tv/media/300906/embed/true/controls/false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="576" height="432" flashvars="media=300906&amp;embed=true&amp;controls=false" quality="high" scale="noborder" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" /></object>[/dohtml]

Clare,

I suggest moving this to a new thread, since the topic matter is slightly different.

Possible title: Against the Oysters: Part 2

Fr. Rostand may not be an American, but he and his interviewer are great at playing softball!

Am I mistaken, or did Fr. Rostand say that the Society's position on religious liberty has not changed? If I were in Mr. Vogel, I would have brought his attention to the CNS interview and then asked for clarification.

Also, Fr. Rostand states that it is unjust to determine that Bishop Fellay has changed his stance based on a five minute interview that was a clip from one hour. So then, why didn't Mr. Vogel ask why the interview was approved to be put on the SSPX website in the first place?

Let someone who is not part of the SSPX machine ask the real questions.

Softball, indeed!

C. Marie: the reason an interview like the one you suggest will not happen is because, it seems to me, the clear purpose of this series is propaganda not to actually answer these hard questions.

Oh, all right then!

My reaction: Fr. Rostand gives incoherent non-answers that wander all over the place. There is no evidence of any objective theological principles as the basis for his comments.

Rather, he makes it appear that one may sacrifice the Catholic faith for "visibility." (Traditional ecclesiology = toast, or at best, in the deep freezer.)

The only authority Fr. Rostand appeals to: the actions of Abp. Lefebvre. The archbishop in 1988, he says, didn't insist on a resolution of DOCTRINAL issues first, but rather signed just a PRACTICAL accord, leaving the doctrinal issues open. True enough, alas!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Fr. Rostand: "yes, it's a matter of faith in a certain point of view.'

Wouldn't that be the Catholic point of view?

FR. CEKADA: My reaction: Fr. Rostand gives incoherent non-answers that wander all over the place. There is no evidence of any objective theological principles as the basis for his comments. Rather, he makes it appear that one may sacrifice the Catholic faith for "visibility." (Traditional ecclesiology = toast, or at best, in the deep freezer.)

CANTATE: Interesting. Everywhere I go now, supermarket, liquor store, public bathroom, you name it, everywhere I go I am hit with the "Church is Visible!" argument.

It's a bunch of fluff, like you get in the paper towel dispenser, right? It's one hundred percent truism, n'est ce pas?

So if we wanted to draw up the newhierarchy of principles, it would go something like this:

CATEGORY OF PINNACLE: OBEDIENCE
CATEGORY OF SUB-PINNACLE: VISIBILITY

SUB-CATEGORY: FAITH

Father,

With all due respect, I think your view of the video is highly influence by your sedevacantist lenses. I thought Fr. Rostand gave reasonable answers, and he never said one may sacrifice the Catholic faith for visibility. Rather, he said there is more than one principle of unity, which if course is exactly right.

I am finding more and more intersting to see how those against this agreement are twisting the words of those in favor of the agreement.

We know this priest was appointed to practice the art of duplicity .... and his awkward speech adds to the great distraction .... but some questions do come to mind which he is keen to exploit and produce as proof of ABL's true intentions.

The first one harks back to ABL's only interest in achieving Vatican recognton for his project in the early days. Another refers to the setting aside of doctrine in pursuit of recognition in 1988. And in spite of the charade of elaborate doctrinal discussions we have had to endure, doctrine can still be likewise set aside, following in ABL's footsteps. We therefore have to assume that the divide between the Society's concept of tradition and the Roman one was never that great and in the name of unity can so easily be ignored. The faith go hang!

Perhaps as Anglo-Saxons we are not qualfied to understand the French mind! And in this regard perhaps it would therefore be unwise to have much trust in anything of French origin. One certainly lives and learns.

Mr. Baldwin: Father,

With all due respect, I think your view of the video is highly influence by your sedevacantist lenses. I thought Fr. Rostand gave reasonable answers, and he never said one may sacrifice the Catholic faith for visibility. Rather, he said there is more than one principle of unity, which if course is exactly right.

I am finding more and more intersting to see how those against this agreement are twisting the words of those in favor of the agreement.



With all due respect, Mr. Baldwin, how can we twist the words of those who are in favor of agreement, when we cannot for the life of us figure out what they are saying? Interpreting them is along the lines of trying to interpret the documents of Vatican II. As Fr. Pfeiffer so eloquently put it, we must get back to clarity in speech, and clarity in professing our Faith and denouncing error. When you talk around yourselves, as we have been seeing of late, it leaves open all sorts of interpretation, which then leads to accusations of spreading rumors and twisting words. I am not defending sarcasm or bitter zeal; however, let us be honest with ourselves. The secrecy and lack of clarity have have not come from the folks in the pews...

"incoherent non answers"

One of the tell-tale symptoms of either a modernist in the Church or a liberal in politics. Their numbers are legion.

Fr. Rostand: “Bishop Fellay has been very clear… there is no way that we would accept to compromise the Faith”.

Fr. Cekada: “Fr. Rostand… makes it appear that one may sacrifice the Catholic faith for "visibility."

Notice how Fr. Cekada “interprets” Fr. Rostand as saying exactly the contrary of what he actually said.

Father, is it really necessary to resort to such dishonest methods in order to persuade people in favor of your personal opinion? Is this dishonest method your normal course of action, or are you only using it in this particular occasion? And seeing how you completely misrepresented what Fr. Rostand said, how can anyone trust anything else you have to say, or indeed anything you have said in the past?

Or, perhaps, was your comment simply an innocent mistake? If so, hopefully my pointing out your error will give you an opportunity to make reparation by publicly apologizing for your unfortunate remarks.

Bishop Fellay states in his letter to the three bishops that:

"In itself, the proposed solution of a personal Prelature is not a trap. That is clear firstly from the fact that the present situation in April of 2012 is very different from that of 1988. To claim that nothing has changed is a historic error."

Fr. Rostand says in the interview:

"and the situation today between the society and Rome is similar to the situation of 1988 with the possible protocol of that time."

So which is it?

Let's review what Fr. Rostand actually said, and see if it supports your thesis.

Fr. Rostand: “When the pope asks us something, where there is no reason not to obey. Well, we have to obey. When the Faith is not in question, when it is not something that goes against the moral principles…”.

How could Fr. Rostand be more clear? He specifically stated that the society must obey the Pope "when the faith is not in question". Yet this was twisted to mean he has placed obedience at the pinnacle, and reduced the faith to a sub-category. The problem is not that Fr. Rostand is being unclear, but that others refuse to accept what he is clearly saying, as we have seen with Fr. Cekada and now with contatedomino.

And it is also worth pointing out that Tradfly gave a thumbs up to the post of Cantatedomino. This shows that the unthinking cheerleaders, such as Tradfly, are simply following along with those who twist the words of others . Hopefully Tradfly will eventually learn to think for himself/herself, and not blindly follow others.

Here's Tradfly at work:

Marie: the reason an interview like the one you suggest will not happen is because, it seems to me, the clear purpose of this series is propaganda not to actually answer these hard questions.[QUOTE]

Yes, clearly, gaining a propaganda advantage is at the heart of this interview. I grow increasingly tired of the French, quite frankly. I want to hear a few SSPX spokesmen with Anglo or American accents, (preferably American). Maybe I'm a xenophope. :D
I want to hear Fr. Rostand explain something about Menzingen's business arrangements and more about that fat guy in their employ.

I do not deny that Fr. Rostand said “Bishop Fellay has been very clear… there is no way that we would accept to compromise the Faith”.

Well he would, wouldn't he?

But please note what I actually said: “Fr. Rostand… makes it appear that one may sacrifice the Catholic faith for visibility."

This Fr. Rostand does by his incoherent answers which do not really reply to the questions, not to mention his "teaser" comment at the beginning:

"It is not true to say that the unity of the Church is only based on the faith."

So if you can't HAVE unity in faith, what do you settle for? Visibility? Subjection to a Roman Pontiff who teaches doctrines contrary to the faith, such as religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, etc.? Communion with a hierarchy that officially professes these doctrines, which ABL and SSPX have consistently condemned as errors?

This seems to be the message he is telegraphing to viewers, who are meant to conclude that acceptable to put matters of faith on the back burner, if not take them off the stove completely.

For me, Father's comments on the 1988 accord that ABL signed — in effect "praxis first, doctrine later" — confirm this impression.

But the interview was intended, I think, merely to convey impressions, rather than provide substantive answers to the hard questions that everyone is asking.

And "sedevacantist lenses"? Well, they're at least better than wearing blinders! V)

You've been growing tired of the French for quite some time....

Maybe the first 13 minutes of the interview where Fr. Rostand explained how circumstances have changed will give you the answer to the cherry picked quotation.

"We were able to present to Rome our position - was never known in Rome as well as today"
Well, just trot me up the ramp and shear me good!

Fr. Rostand is an unqualified failure as Propaganda Minister, he aught to stick with being a priest. The bright side to all this is that the only people, except perhaps for a few hapless newcomers to Tradition, who will be deceived by him are those who wish to be deceived. His script is disingenuous on so many points I wouldn't know where to begin eviscerating it. The last bit is particularly notable though, equating the secrecy surrounding these proceedings to requisite "privacy". Why? because of "pressure". Brilliant! He sure as heck didn't prove that point!

NB. Very amusing Balders, but she's much prettier than I. You really aught not to be so anxious to make personal attacks, it betrays something rather untoward about you.

He contradicted the majority of the interview with this "cherry picked quotation." This would be as consistent as arguing with many proofs that the sky is blue and then state that the sky is orange. So the question remains.

Bernadette: You've been growing tired of the French for quite some time.... [QUOTE]

Yes, I have. And you haven't? Father Nely was in Post Falls for a week or longer. He said a few masses, but not one time did he speak publicly to the issues of gravest importance to the faithful. He scheduled no public meeting(s) Most of the faithful here at Immaculate Conception got no closer to him than the other side altar rail. Now why does this 3rd in command have nothing to say to us? Why does he come thousands of expensive miles to the American Northwest? If he wanted to talk to our pastor, Father Vassal, could he not have rung him up on the phone? To me it means simply this: The Menzingen leadership, it appears, really could care less about the 1500 lay folks here and the tens of thousands of SSPX faithful throughout the world. We're here to pay, pray obey, and mind our own business, I guess. This a priest thing and the faithful do not figure in very significantly at all. Actually it's a priest thing alright, but limited only to a few select priests, mostly French and a few Germans. Even SSPX bishops are cut out of the loop. Are we sufficiently disgusted yet? I don't think so.

Hollie...the sspx is not a democracy. It is not a public vote. What I find so confusing is that the sspx anti-accordes seem to think it is...how ironic...they speak out of both sides of the mouth, condemning revolution, and proposing a revolution. What is it that you think that Fr. Nely could of said or done? Do you really think that a meeting should of been called to get the input of the faithful? Everyone knows by now the circumstances, everyone will make a decision...there must someday come an end to this bickering and fighting, this potential schism...if now is not the time, then when is? Will there be the same uprising and demands for a democratic approach in any future reconciliation attempts? Will any bishop be prudent enough to know when the right time to reconcile has come? Will a time ever come when there is complete agreement between faithful and sspx hierarchy to reconcile? It can't be a recognize and resist forever..it must end..will you go back to the church if there is a deal? Will you go sede if there is a deal? What will you do, what will anyone do? Will you go on fighting to maintain the remnant? Or will you not?

And finally, you are NOT there to pray pay and obey...you have the right to leave at any time...you have the right to leave.

By the way....taking swipes at nationalities is not the way to go...I've done it myself here on this very forum...I realize now that it isn't nice.

And yes, I'm half French....

Perhaps he came to quell the fears and/or suspicions of the Dominican Sisters and the Carmelite Nuns. The Dominicans especially have been known to be a bit on the volatile side on occasion. :)

Yes, the SSPX is not a democracy, but even so, too much secrecy, even against the 3 other SSPX bishops. And in the most recent communique it is revealed that Bishop Fellay, by himself, has done more discussions with Cardinal Levada. The most inexperienced of all the SSPX bishops and not even one of the top theologians and he is doing more doctrinal discussions?!!! It seems to me that Bishop Fellay thought the doctrinal discussions with Bishop de Galaretta weren't enough. Bishop Fellay, I fear, will make a deal detrimental to the SSPX.

I saved some "freedom fries" for you --Worth over a $trillion in Iraqi WMD. But at least we got Sa'ddam satisfaction, right? :lol:

You are the first to point out here some frustrating elements of the french and more importantly of "priests behaving badly" and there's nothing funny about that.

Being french, but american let's me understand both, appeciate and criticise, as well.

I understand the french love of intellect and ideas, praising a heartful loser more than the easy winner, the somewhat quirky and playfully teasing french sense of humor, the ruinous, godless logic of an "incorruptible" Robespierre, the "I will not be a saint by halves" of Therese of Lisieux, the terrible, seductive liberalism of Lammenais, the irrepressible charity of Vincent de Paul, the brilliant spirituality for saints and beginners of Francis de Sales, the singularly unfathomable heart of a Joan of Arc, the "ecrase l'infame" of Voltaire and the unjust suppression of the rights of God by Rousseau.

I've personally witnessed in Paris, both a most beautiful pentacost high mass at St Nicholas followed by a huge man outside with maniacal eyes and long hair swearing at us at the top of his lungs how "there is no God" -- unthinkable here in the states, he was as right out from Les Miserables.

The french, as a people, have always been somewhat given to extremes.

On the one hand, no-where on earth were a people more likely to fight against the enemies of the faith than in France. And no-where so capable of being seduced by their own.

Priests behaving badly give anti-clericalism a good name, right?

The SSPX needs a purification. Even Lacordaire, who refounded the Dominicans in France after the revolutionary years, said that most all orders need to be reformed every 70 years. Make that every 20 or so for the SSPX until they stand on firmer principles.

It's frustrating to see the worse in the french, but it can be glorious to see the best.

Archbishop Lefebvre was like a man in a jungle -- hacking away with his machete just to make a path for others to follow, surviving as best he could to preserve the faith when very few others cared. Like a boatman in uncharted waters in a storm, he often went the wrong way then corrected course, went the wrong way again, corrected course. He left the SSPX to later definitively decide on issues of sacraments, annulments, heretical popes or anti-popes instead of deciding them in his day. It leaves the SSPX in a mess, but at least there is still a resistance.

If God grants a few more french saints in our time, I think you'll toss your freedom fries. A Margaret Mary, Bernadette and maybe a Louis IX.

Any special requests? :)

In '88 the Archbishop almost allowed himself to be talked into a practical arrangement by the nervous nellies who didn't see the situation as clearly as he did. These included Fr. Tissier at the time. It's all in the biography.

Archbishop Lefebvre's stance was that it would be impossible to cooperate with these men whose programme was counter to that of Our Lord. He said, very clearly, many times, that there could be no subjection without doctrinal correction - on the part of "rome."

Fr. Rostand is therefore comparing and contrasting the wrong things. It's obvious that he and Bishop Fellay do not think that they are compromising the faith, and the "errors of V2" line in the Preamble text is evidence of that. But neither are they following the policy of the Archbishop on how best to avoid compromising the faith.

Tissier is clear on this, which is why he's against the deal.

Charls: Archbishop Lefebvre was like a man in a jungle -- hacking away with his machete just to make a path for others to follow, surviving as best he could to preserve the faith when very few others cared. Like a boatman in uncharted waters in a storm, he often went the wrong way then corrected course, went the wrong way again, corrected course. He left the SSPX to later definitively decide on issues of sacraments, annulments, heretical popes or anti-popes instead of deciding them in his day. It leaves the SSPX in a mess, but at least there is still a resistance.[QUOTE]

Good post, Charls. I quote only part of it above. Actually, I am not that hard bitten towards the French. We have visited the incorrupt remains of St. Therese and the Cure of Ars. And photos of them are up in a special room of our home. One of the forum members is French for whom I feel a real connection. We are in touch with one another quite frequently. It's just that Fr. Rostand's sing-songy French brogue is beginning to wear thin. And that wide-eyed deer-in-the-headlights look has been worked to the extreme, I feel.
You're absolutely right, and it is a brilliant analogy. ABL was a "man in a jungle, hacking away with his machete," not always knowing where he was going, and finally leaving it for others who followed to finish the path. I am of the impression, however, that he passed his machete on to the wrong people. It would seem that the path being presently hacked leads directly to Rome and into the waiting arms of the smiling Benedict. But for us, not to worry, we hedged our bets by purchasing a kind of 'credit default swap, ' thus insuring our initial SSPX investment against total collapse. How? by buying into, and sharing time with the local FSSP chapel, named, ironically, St. Joan of Arc :D Several priests at ICC were not too happy with us and expressed as much. Even so, we all still get along, and I serve Mass at ICC one day a week, (also at St. Joan's) and I sing at Vespers. My wife still does an enormous amount of work for the SSPX priests.
As for Bernadette reminding me that this is not a "democracy," meaning, I guess, that +Fellay & Co. have a perfect right to treat the faithful like mushrooms growing in dark, silent greenhouses. But do even monarchies, secular autocracies, and dictatorships normally keep their people in the dark most of the time? Do they conduct almost total information blackouts as a matter of basic policy?

COUNTER-revolution in both instances supports God against the revolutionaries.

-But this is no counter-revolution...not really. This is a last ditch effort by the johnny-come-lately's that ignored the warning signs which began at least three years ago when +Fellay cast +Willliamson under the proverbial bus...there were no front line counter revolutionaries then, only wimpy "we must trust our Superior General" types...there were but a few who sounded the alarm and suffered the castigations of the rest. Waiting until the 11th hour to mount an offensive? I hope it works out for all of you....

After the leak of the letter, do you not think he may have been justified?

St.Justin, you're only justifying Bishop Fellay's reprehensible behavior (IMO) after the fact of it being known. And all this ambiguity on many SSPX official websites! Why no "Yes, yes" and "No, no" as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has done at today's ordinations?

I certainly don't see the people here at IA as "johnny-come-lately's." For all Bishop Fellay did in the previous years, it didn't involve the Faith. And none of the people here who defended Bishop Williamson were of the type to totally trust Bishop Fellay. As Bishop Williamson said, even he himself can "go crazy" and turn Modernist.