|
Post by Didymus on Apr 9, 2023 22:20:53 GMT -5
We really need to pray that God gives them the grace to sort everything out. This situation is very problematic. Well, it all goes back to the study done by Fr. Pierre Marie and is one main reason why SSPX is convinced that the new consecration rite of bishops is valid. From my understanding of their development of thought on this, it is that they were convinced years ago that the rite is essentially an eastern rite, or based on the ancient rite of Hippolytus, therefore it is valid. This study has been debunked, but the question now is how to get them to look at the evidence against it and reconsider their conclusion. I don't believe for a second that the SSPX leadership would knowingly allow their organization to provide potentially invalid sacraments, or that they are doing this for political reasons, and I do believe that they are doing this because they are convinced by the Pierre-Marie study. I can't remember now where I read this, as it was many years ago, but my recollection is that Archbishop Lefebvre also had serious concerns about the new rite of consecration of bishops, but was assured by Fr. Schmidberger that the Paul VI rite was taken from an eastern rite, and based on that, all doubt ended. Fwiw, they are acting consistently, even though the polemicists are saying otherwise. The issue with the blessed oils is the same issue of allowing priests to work with the SSPX who were ordained by bishops of the new rite. The problem is that they have been convinced based in incorrect evidence that the rite is certainly valid. This can be ended of course by praying for them, but secondly, the matter of the new rite needs to be studied more in depth and the facts presented to the SSPX leadership again. IMO, I don't think they take Fr. Cekada seriously, and will not even consider his study. It needs to be done by someone else. Is it known if this affects locally or is it general? I wonder, would the Bishops of Lefebvre really endanger the entire work of the FSSPX for that modernist bishop? Knowing that many of the faithful are anti-modernists, he would become a revolution. Is it just official policy as they do when you ask them about the orders of the novus ordo and in reality they will use oil paintings of the 3 Bishops that remain in the FSSPX? Bishop Tissier, I believe that even today he has not changed his position on the invalidity of the novus ordo, or has he? If that were the case, I don't understand how they could risk so much for a modernist. What precaution would we have to take now if we want to receive confirmation or last rites? And how could we be 100% of the oils etc are valid? When in doubt, it will only be left then to write that they acquit you as in a confession in case of being unconscious since there will be no certainty of the oil paintings. what do all think?
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Apr 10, 2023 0:08:11 GMT -5
What makes you think he's a modernist Didymus ? Perhaps this man is a genuine Catholic but doesn't know that he's a layman? His wikipedia page states that "Huonder then chose to live out his retirement in an Society of Saint Pius X house, with papal authorization, where he intends to live a quiet and prayerful life, celebrate the Tridentine Mass, and work for tradition, which he sees as the only means of restoration of the Church.[5]"
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Apr 10, 2023 7:52:25 GMT -5
What makes you think he's a modernist Didymus ? Perhaps this man is a genuine Catholic but doesn't know that he's a layman? His wikipedia page states that "Huonder then chose to live out his retirement in an Society of Saint Pius X house, with papal authorization, where he intends to live a quiet and prayerful life, celebrate the Tridentine Mass, and work for tradition, which he sees as the only means of restoration of the Church.[5]" Yes, my expression was bad, excuse me John, I meant his orders, not his Faith.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Apr 10, 2023 12:08:06 GMT -5
Hi John, “Bishop” Huonder certainly espouses modernist “doctrine”. He has never publicly rejected any questionable statements in his conciliar past. Please see the URL from the Avrille Dominicans where they discuss his previous public statements. They cite his statements so there should be no doubt. URL: dominicansavrille.us/conciliar-bishops-in-schools-of-tradition/For example, The ambiguous modernist gobbledegook (see also Vatican II’s “Nostra Aetate”), that the modern day Jews are his “chosen” people or that God did not allow his people [i.e. the Jews] to fall. I am sure a more detailed analysis of his conciliar background would reveal further proof of his modernist credentials.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Apr 10, 2023 13:31:36 GMT -5
Hi John, “Bishop” Huonder certainly espouses modernist “doctrine”. He has never publicly rejected any questionable statements in his conciliar past. Please see the URL from the Avrille Dominicans where they discuss his previous public statements. They cite his statements so there should be no doubt. URL: dominicansavrille.us/conciliar-bishops-in-schools-of-tradition/For example, The ambiguous modernist gobbledegook (see also Vatican II’s “Nostra Aetate”), that the modern day Jews are his “chosen” people or that God did not allow his people [i.e. the Jews] to fall. I am sure a more detailed analysis of his conciliar background would reveal further proof of his modernist credentials. Hi Wenceslas, Can you provide a bit more than this please? A well constructed case against a man requires more than a single quote. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Apr 10, 2023 15:22:11 GMT -5
John, Although I think the above is pretty damming, see the URL below. Pictures are worth a thousand words. He’s a man of VII! In the SSPX, to hasten their incorporation into the Conciliar “church”. Not saying that the SSPX leadership will fall for it, but they have placed the Society in grave danger (I.e invalid Sacraments as discussed by novusordowatch ) by allowing him to function as a “bishop” in their midst. URL: advocatusfidei.wordpress.com/tag/vitus-huonder/I also just re-read the article from the Avrille Dominicans. They do a good job in revealing Huonder’s views on the salvivfic value of the Jewish religion and his views on the perceived continuity of Vatican II from pre-VII Catholicism.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Apr 11, 2023 0:19:50 GMT -5
John, Although I think the above is pretty damming, see the URL below. Pictures are worth a thousand words. He’s a man of VII! In the SSPX, to hasten their incorporation into the Conciliar “church”. Not saying that the SSPX leadership will fall for it, but they have placed the Society in grave danger (I.e invalid Sacraments as discussed by novusordowatch ) by allowing him to function as a “bishop” in their midst. URL: advocatusfidei.wordpress.com/tag/vitus-huonder/I also just re-read the article from the Avrille Dominicans. They do a good job in revealing Huonder’s views on the salvivfic value of the Jewish religion and his views on the perceived continuity of Vatican II from pre-VII Catholicism. Thanks for this wenceslav. It is pretty damning and if he hasn't repented of his errors and rejected Vatican II then the SSPX shouldn't have anything to do with him. It really is quite horrific.
|
|
|
Post by RitaMarita on Apr 11, 2023 5:58:08 GMT -5
Well, it all goes back to the study done by Fr. Pierre Marie and is one main reason why SSPX is convinced that the new consecration rite of bishops is valid. From my understanding of their development of thought on this, it is that they were convinced years ago that the rite is essentially an eastern rite, or based on the ancient rite of Hippolytus, therefore it is valid. This study has been debunked, but the question now is how to get them to look at the evidence against it and reconsider their conclusion. I don't believe for a second that the SSPX leadership would knowingly allow their organization to provide potentially invalid sacraments, or that they are doing this for political reasons, and I do believe that they are doing this because they are convinced by the Pierre-Marie study. I can't remember now where I read this, as it was many years ago, but my recollection is that Archbishop Lefebvre also had serious concerns about the new rite of consecration of bishops, but was assured by Fr. Schmidberger that the Paul VI rite was taken from an eastern rite, and based on that, all doubt ended. Fwiw, they are acting consistently, even though the polemicists are saying otherwise. The issue with the blessed oils is the same issue of allowing priests to work with the SSPX who were ordained by bishops of the new rite. The problem is that they have been convinced based in incorrect evidence that the rite is certainly valid. This can be ended of course by praying for them, but secondly, the matter of the new rite needs to be studied more in depth and the facts presented to the SSPX leadership again. IMO, I don't think they take Fr. Cekada seriously, and will not even consider his study. It needs to be done by someone else. Is it known if this affects locally or is it general? I wonder, would the Bishops of Lefebvre really endanger the entire work of the FSSPX for that modernist bishop? Knowing that many of the faithful are anti-modernists, he would become a revolution. Is it just official policy as they do when you ask them about the orders of the novus ordo and in reality they will use oil paintings of the 3 Bishops that remain in the FSSPX? Bishop Tissier, I believe that even today he has not changed his position on the invalidity of the novus ordo, or has he? If that were the case, I don't understand how they could risk so much for a modernist. What precaution would we have to take now if we want to receive confirmation or last rites? And how could we be 100% of the oils etc are valid? When in doubt, it will only be left then to write that they acquit you as in a confession in case of being unconscious since there will be no certainty of the oil paintings. what do all think? I definitely think that this was a bad move on the SSPX. I think that too many people question the novus ordo consecrations. But... Perhaps that is part of the deal with Rome... Maybe this novus ordo "bishop" is the one who is supposed to consecrate their new bishops for them.. And then they will basically go the way of the FSSP and eventually have mostly invalid clergy?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 11, 2023 9:04:41 GMT -5
John, Although I think the above is pretty damming, see the URL below. Pictures are worth a thousand words. He’s a man of VII! In the SSPX, to hasten their incorporation into the Conciliar “church”. Not saying that the SSPX leadership will fall for it, but they have placed the Society in grave danger (I.e invalid Sacraments as discussed by novusordowatch ) by allowing him to function as a “bishop” in their midst. URL: advocatusfidei.wordpress.com/tag/vitus-huonder/I also just re-read the article from the Avrille Dominicans. They do a good job in revealing Huonder’s views on the salvivfic value of the Jewish religion and his views on the perceived continuity of Vatican II from pre-VII Catholicism. It is very powerful evidence against him, Wenceslav. I have been trying to figure this out, actually, as this whole matter has not been on my radar, until this controversy. It's worth noting that all of the evidence presented is of actions that happened prior to "Bishop" Huonder going into a life of reclusion with the Society. I am not certain, but it seems possible that "Bishop" Huonder is living a life of repentance for his actions and failure, and that's why he has retired with SSPX and not somewhere else. It doesn't make sense for a modernist to want to retire in silence with the SSPX. There are plenty of retirement options available for heretics of all sorts, including modernists, that don't involve the true mass of the Church, living all of the externals of a Catholic life, and being around faithful priests who adhere firmly to the Catholic Faith. The "Joint communiqué of Bishop Huonder and Father Pagliarani," which was signed by both Bishop Huonder and Fr. Pagliarani on May .20, 2019, is linked HERE
The communiqué states in part: This sounds to me like a man who wants to cut himself off from the world and pray and do penance for the remainder of his life, not cause trouble or spread modernist ideas. This certainly does not excuse his past actions and inactions in his "office" as "bishop," but if a man wants to live a life of repentance, silence and prayer, that is a good thing for him to do as his life is drawing to a close, and it may be why the SSPX gave him sanctuary to retire with them. This at least seems to be a reasonable possibility. Until this controversy, no one seemed to pay much attention to Huonder, and it seems like he was keeping a low profile and living a life of silence, as the above statement says. We don't know why they even used him to bless the oils, if he did actually blessed the oils, as that fact is not yet firmly established, or who asked him to do this. There is a lot that is not known about in this matter, and probably will not be known about.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 11, 2023 10:07:59 GMT -5
I have moved this to a new thread specifically dedicated to "Bishop" Huonder.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Apr 11, 2023 10:45:18 GMT -5
Pacelli, thanks for the “joint communiqué“ article. I agree that “Bp” Huonder can just be a man intent on retiring and perhaps making amends by prayer and penance. He certainly stands in contrast to “Bp.” Lazo who formally repudiated his involvement in the conciliar revolution by statements and letters to Wojtyla etc.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 11, 2023 11:04:12 GMT -5
Pacelli, thanks for the “joint communiqué“ article. I agree that “Bp” Huonder can just be a man intent on retiring and perhaps making amends by prayer and penance. He certainly stands in contrast to “Bp.” Lazo who formally repudiated his involvement in the conciliar revolution by statements and letters to Wojtyla etc. I agree Wenceslav, his coming to SSPX did not involve anything similar to the strong public stands against the Conciliar sect made by "Bp." Lazo.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on Apr 11, 2023 14:25:30 GMT -5
I hadn’t heard of the Lazo case. Could you provide more information about it?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Apr 11, 2023 16:48:40 GMT -5
I hadn’t heard of the Lazo case. Could you provide more information about it? Hi John, (Note to all readers: I mean no disrespect to either "Bp." Huonder or the late "Bp." Lazo by placing their title as bishop in quotes, as I believe their consecration as bishop is doubtful, based on the defective rite that was used. These quotes are not in any way an attack on their character or in any way an attack against whether they have, or had, the Faith.) He was a Filipino "Bishop" who went to work with the SSPX. He was outspoken in his reasons, and as Wenceslav and I were just discussing it was very different from "Bp." Huonder, who did not, at least publicly, disavow the Conciliar church or its beliefs, although, I think with Huonder's actions, it is certainly arguably implied that he is rejecting the Conciliar sect. Here are some good letters from "Bp." Lazo explaining his beliefs publicly: 1. Bishop Salvador Lazo's Declaration of Faith to John Paul II: archives.sspx.org/bishop_salvador_lazo/bishop_lazos_declaration_of_faith.htm2. My Return to the Traditional Latin Mass: www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2000/March-April/Autobiography.htm3. My Return to the Traditional Latin Mass, Part 2 archives.sspx.org/bishop_salvador_lazo/my_return_to_catholic_tradition_part_2.htm
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Apr 16, 2023 22:09:05 GMT -5
Apparently a testimony material is coming from this "Bishop", we will have to wait to see it complete, it can help the analysis of this case.
|
|