St. Peter's Church - the graffiti is visible on the grey wall
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The business of enemies
St. Peter's Church - the graffiti is visible on the grey wallSt. Peter's Church - the graffiti is visible on the grey wall
St. Peter's Church - the graffiti is visible on the grey wall
I don't know about Fr. Puga but I believe Fr. Romanoski is the FSSP priest, not the SSPX...
ReplyDeleteCatholics don't attack Catholic churches ...
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, these militant SSPX revolutionaries don't recognize any churches other than their own chapels as "Catholic churches". Their acts reveal thems as radical separatists who are in schism de facto, if not de jure.
I would expect that Bishop Fellay will distance himself from such hooliganism. What about the other SSPX leaders?
No priest or faithful of the SSPX would do anything like that. Is there any proof that they were SSPX just because someone claims to be dosent necessarily mean they are they could be trying to descredit SSPX.
ReplyDeleteThe picture above is of course meaningless since the graffitti has as they say been removed there is no evidence that it was ever there. I am not saying that it wasnt thee or the person is lying simply that the picture proves nothing.
Damian Bath
Damian, take a closer look at the walls of the sidewalk and you will quite clearly see the message "Ecumenismo no! Judas!" It is there. If you look through the gratings behind this wall there is similar grafitti.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, I would not think a priest of the SSPX had written the graffiti - perhaps they did not know it would be there when they arrived - but a member of the faithful... I have no doubt believing. I could name 20 off the top of my head who I know myself and who would do so with the greatest pleasure.
In like manner I have the same doubts as yourself that the President of Una Voce in the city would tell such lies. Una Voce is hardly anti-SSPX?
What a cowardly action !
ReplyDeleteI think it is despicable that a supposedly "Catholic" blog would participate in detraction such as this, if not downright calumny. This whole story is based on hearsay, with no verifiable evidence, and apparently with no attempt made to hear from the SSPX priest supposedly involved. This just chills my blood. I hope other eyes are opened now to the true enemy here.
ReplyDeleteDear Rev. Fr. Michael Mary, F.SS.R.
ReplyDeleteIf this News is true, I am outraged by what I have read.
Silence is better than provocation, dialogue is better than violence.
With All Respect
A.B.
Please spare us your indignation, Isabelle. There are eyewitness accounts provided in Matthew Bellisario's reporting of this event. Besides, is it really so surprising that such an act would be perpetrated by SSPX followers? Go read some back issues of Si Si, No No, if you doubt that SSPXers would have no respect for "Novus Ordo" and "Indult" churches.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you are as indignant about the calumnies that have been heaped upon the FSSP by militant SSPX people?
I am a witness to the events, as I was there present--I was one of the two or three people involved with helping Fr. Romanoski get the crowd to stop being so loud. And I can confirm that the report in Catholic Champion Blog is all true. The priests of the FSSP are going first through all the channels (informing their superior, trying to establish contact with the SSPX priest(s) inovolved, etc.). You will probably not hear anything even semi-official until they do so.
ReplyDeleteAlso note that graffiti is, sadly, incredibly common here in Guadalajara. The people who did it (SSPXers or not) probably didn't think much of it, especially since it was done on the wall in front of the Church and not on the Church wall itself.
Yes, Isabelle, spare us your indignity.
ReplyDeleteIf the SSPX supporters took as much care to ascertain the facts about what our Holy Father did or didn't say, do or didn't do, as they are taking to ascertain the facts about the Mexican incident, maybe you'd be back in the Church where you belong.
Catherine
It would seem appropriate for Bishop Fellay to say something publicly about this. Otherwise it could be viewed as tacit approval that this kind of "demonstration" is acceptable behavior. Hopefully this gets addressed very soon.
ReplyDeleteI have read an unofficial translation of Fr. Romanowski's sermon that he preached while SSPX militants protested loudly outside the FSSP chapel, disrupting Holy Mass. The sermon refutes false ecumenism and affirms traditional Catholic teaching in the strongest possible terms.
ReplyDeleteLet those listen who have ears to hear ...
Bishop Fellay reportedly admitted that the SSPX is a kind of magnet for extremists that are unwanted. If this is true then perhaps he feels powerless to act in the face of such incidents for fear of creating more internal strife.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,675163-2,00.html
I think that Bishop Fellay should save his own soul and reconcile with Rome directly. Let those in the SSPX who want to save their souls as well follow him. The doctrinal discussions can proceed apace. Souls first. It would be a courageous and dramatic move by Bishop Fellay. I'm sure that there would be hands aplenty to help him aboard the Barque of Peter, including some strong hands reaching out from a certain desert in the pathless sea. ;-)
ReplyDeleteHas anyone tried to contact the SSPX about this matter? I cannot believe that they have not bothered to say anything on this issue. I would have expected them to either deny it or issue a statement of reprimand by now. I have no problems with the SSPX or attending their Masses. I have always supported them, but I am truly dismayed by their silence on this issue. I sent an email to their US Headquarters regarding this matter but have not received a reply at all. This is all very disappointing. I wonder if Bishop Fellay has even been told of what has happened. Surely he would issue a statement if he were aware. I just do not understand tehir silence.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX priests in Guadalajara are not known for being in accord with the present talks between the SSPX and the Holy See. I think that the FSSP or/and some of the lay witnesses like the gentleman who wrote above should email or fax Bishop Fellay in Menzingen to tell him what happened. It is not impossible that he is not aware of it since he was traveling in France these last days.
ReplyDeleteSean
Sean is correct. Those who witnessed this event need to notify the SSPX, especially Bishop Fellay. I received an email response from the SSPX Headquarters in the IS. Their brief response stated that they were aware of the situation and were looking into the details. They believe some of the details are being misrepresented. No apology, no acknowledgement that this was wrong, nothing. It is hard to beleive that they do not have some answers by now. I believe this event occurred around 1/20/10. Are they not able to contact the priests involved? They should have done more by now. In addition, at least 3 witnesses have posted what hey saw online and they all seem to corraborate each others story.
ReplyDeleteWhat a sad state of affairs! Our Lady of Fatima stated that a diabolical disorientation would descend upon the clergy unless Russia was consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart. Let us all pick up our rosaries; pray as many as our state in life allows; and do penance.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX has posted a reply on their website. The reply is full of holes. They basically deny that they were there to protest. They say they were there to pray the Rosary - almost as in support, yet they do not say that. I have lost all respect fo them. I hope someone gets this information to Bishop Fellay. The Mexican District needs to be reeled in.
ReplyDeleteI sent the information to the US District and their reply was as above. I also sent it to the SA District and the response to Mexico is addressed to the SA District. The contact link for the mother house in Switzerland was not working so I was unable to send it to them.
Anyway, their said excuse...
SSPX-FSSP MEXICO INCIDENT: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sspx_fssp_mexico_incident.htm
The SSPX has lost all credibility, IMO. By the way, the SSPX flatter themselves if they think that the much-ballyhooed doctrinal talks are about bringing the "Roman authorities" to their senses. On the contrary, the purpose of the talks is to bring the SSPX in line with Rome as a condition of regularization.
ReplyDeleteThe hubris of these people is breathtaking.
Pity this report was spread so far so quickly without an attempt to get a reply from the SSPX.
ReplyDeleteHere's more of what happened:
* The SSPX folks prayed a rosary outside the Church. They left before the Consecration.
* A woman at the church closed the doors, presumably to keep out the sound of the people praying the rosary. Someone else inside the church then opened the doors.
* Persons not associated with the SSPX sprayed graffiti on the church.
* Una Voce Mexico has a history of spreading false reporst about the SSPX.
Wow! This gets wackier by the minute. The SSPX US District website added an additional note to their news release on this event earlier in the day, further justifying what occurred in Mexico. Now this evening they have pulled the entire statement. I am not sure what that is about. Perhaps Bishop Fellay has gotten wind of the situation. I know I have sent emails trying to contact him myself. I did get an email through to Switzerland today. I guess we will see how this plays out.
ReplyDeleteI just checked again. It appears that they removed it from the front page/new release section to another area of their website.
ReplyDeleteThe update seems to acknowledge that they did the protest but they justify it in their minds because the FSSP 'supports' false ecumenism, even if the priest did not. Such nonsense. I pray Bishop Fellay comes down on all involved - those in Mexico and those in the US who are giving tacit approval of this.
Can any one else see it? Look closely on the grey wall. Four letter just to the left of the brown post. I see an E, L V I and then to the right of the post I see an S! So this is where he's been hiding.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX initially buried their response (after having first posted on the front page of the North American District's website) but it could still be found if you had the direct URL. Since then, I have received another email response which was a copy and paste of the following:
ReplyDelete"February 7, 2010
During the month of January, the association, "Christ the King Crusade," organized a prayer vigil to include the recitation of the Holy Rosary at various churches in Guadalajara, Mexico.
These gatherings were in response to an understanding that those churches were conducting ecumenical services in the spirit of the new ecumenism introduced in the Catholic Church starting with Vatican II. The Society of St. Pius X has always been opposed to this new ecumenism.
On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, a priest and faithful of the Society of St. Pius X participated in the prayer vigil at St. Peter the Apostle Chapel. Following the vigil there were rumored acts of violence committed by SSPX members and reports of vandalism against the church property. Violence and vandalism are far removed from the spirit of the SSPX and must be condemned.
An investigation is under way to determine the facts. At this point, it appears that there were no acts of violence."
As a result, I tried to pull up their original response and it seems it has been completely pulled from the web now.
The email response completely misses the point, as have all of the SSPX responses so far. No one has accused the SSPX of any acts of violence. That is a red herring. The point is that the SSPX think that they alone defend the Catholic Faith, that they alone take a stand against false ecumenism. Their vanity is what led them to stage the unwarranted protest outside the FSSP chapel and it is the same vanity that now prevents them from admitting that they were wrong.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteYou are most certainly correct. I think the point is that the SSPX is still trying to get their own story together. My hunch is that the initial story posted on their website was not authorized by higher ups - or others higher got wind of it and came down on them. First they delay a response - wasn't it about 10 days after this event happened before it made it to blogs? It would seem that maybe they knew about it themselves during this time. Maybe not though - so we'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But the Mexican priests knew, their Chapel knew, and possibly their District knew by then. My first email response from the SSPX (after I first read the story) acknowledged they knew of the storu and were investigating it but they already seemed to be denying the story and the details, even if in a vague manner. Next, up - they post a response from a priest (from the Mexican District? Not the Chapel involved?) and he seemd to deny the events. However below his response was the resposne from a priest from the Chapel. That response was evasive in details. It seemed to admit, yet not admit. Again, it did ot lie, but it was evasive. It made it hard to tell what exactly happened, yet it did seem more likely that the circulating story was indeed true. That was all that initially went up on the website when Ifirst saw it. Later the North American District added their 2 cents. Their comments basically admitted what happened but excused it. I sent the blog links, detailed comments and the SSPX links all over the SSPX to all headquarters and even seminaries to try to get this to higher ups. Since then I received an email response from one seminary. I won't reveal their comments but to say they had not heard the story but found the details they read unsettling. Next up, the story is pulled from the front page of the NA District website but still accessable by URL. Later, I received the last email which appears to be backing down a little. Now the URL for their initial response no longer works. I don't know if we will ever see a complete public response. They may just try to handle this privately and let the story die down. With the elapsed time since this began, it would seem that that is what they are hoping for.
All I can say is that Bishop Fellay is not transparent, what is worse he shifts the blame on others likev he did in the case of Fr Peter Scot
ReplyDelete