"Eleison Comments"

Number CCLXVII (267)
    
25 August 2012
INFECTION ? - WHO ?
A favourite proverb of mine comes from China: “The wise man blames himself, the fool blames others.” Not that others are never to blame, obviously, but that I can usually do little or nothing to change their behaviour, whereas I am at least in theory in command of my own. As the Imitation of Christ has it, we rarely think with profit on the sins of others, always with profit on our own.

This age-old wisdom is called to mind by the letter of a reader of “Eleison Comments” (# 263) in which she complains of the “Conciliar infection” that she observes in the way in which Society of St Pius X Tridentine Masses in the USA can be celebrated by the priests and attended by the laity. If her dark observations are summarized below, it is not in order to overwhelm priests or laity with the darkness, but to suggest how each of us can examine his own behaviour.

In general she says that the “Conciliar infection” has been creeping into the SSPX chapels for some time. She goes so far as to say that the situation is deteriorating and desperate, and the damage is already done. It is as though Latin has taken pride of place over the Faith, as though anything goes if only it is a Tridentine Mass said in Latin. Not having understood - or retained - what the Mass really is, she says, the laity find it normal merely to attend. Many attend Mass daydreaming, and then they receive Holy Communion in a very disrespectful way, just like in the Newchurch.

She blames the priests for not having sufficiently explained the Faith or the Mass. As for their sermons, she wonders at times whether they understand what they are proclaiming and at times she finds that the personal ideas of the priest and the context of the sermon as a whole come over as Conciliar. Liturgical rules are not respected, rubrics are not consistent, the Canon of the Mass is hurried through. In brief she is not surprised if a number of SSPX priests and layfolk are ready to join the Newchurch, nay, may even already belong to it.

Now nobody in his right mind would claim that her dark description fits all SSPX Masses, but such is the corruption of our age that a deterioration of the kind she observes is all too normal. The corruption presses upon priests and laity alike, and it means that all of us need to observe closely how it may be creeping up on ourselves. As Sister Lucy of Fatima once said in the 1950’s, the laity can no longer rely on the clergy to do all the work for them of getting them to Heaven. In fact they never could do so, but a lazy “obedience” is still today a common temptation. If layfolk want good priests to lead them, and if they do not want the SSPX to go Conciliar, then let them observe their own household to put it in order - for instance, how do I myself and my family attend Mass ?

As for us priests, let us not forget the dire warning of the prophet Ezechiel (III, 17-21) to pastors: if the pastors tell the people how they are sinning, and the people go on sinning, the Lord God will punish the people but he will not hold the pastors responsible. Contrariwise, if the people sin and the pastors do not tell them how they are sinning, then the Lord God will hold the pastors guilty for the people’s sins. “Judgment should begin at the house of God” (I Pet. IV, 17).

Therefore it depends on all of us to do what is in our power to prevent the SSPX from catching the “Conciliar infection”. That is today more easily said than done, but as St Paul says (I Cor. IV, 3-5), let each of us look to his own sins. It is God who judges.

Kyrie eleison.

But while I'm here, can any of you provide any evidence of the SSPX sellout better than that of quasi-omniscient dark ladies?

From the letter dated July 18, 2012 of Fr. Christian Thouvenot to all SSPX priests:

Desirable Condition #2:

"Exemption of houses of The Society of St Pius X in respect of diocesan bishops."

I had been thinking of writing to Bp. Williamson and asking him the same question I've asked Doctor White and others: what is your evidence that the SSPX is selling out?  So far, the response has been deafening silence.

With his latest Eleison Comments, it appears that the best he can do is to summarize the complaints of an anonymous lady who condemns the performance of the SSPX throughout the United States.  On firsthand experience sitting in some/most/all of the American chapels?  Bp. Williamson doesn't say.  I think it fair to conjecture that Bp. Williamson doesn't know.

But after tut-tutting a bit about her "darkness," he goes on to treat her indictment as if it were proven, and finally ends up calling on the laity to take matters into their own hands, on the evidence of Sr. Lucy (Sr. Lucy I or Sr. Lucy II?  Looks like II.).

The British intelligentsia have the gift of straightfacedly treating complete balderdash as if it were the veriest common sense.  It seems that Bp. Williamson has heretofore unrecognized abilities of that sort.

Notice also that he effectively speaks of the SSPX in the third person.  I wrote to him a few weeks ago and among other things suggested that he stop the charade and quit the Society.  Then at least he wouldn't be biting the hand that feeds him.  Instead, he seems content to nip at Bp. Fellay's heels but without giving grounds for being sacked.

But while I'm here, can any of you provide any evidence of the SSPX sellout better than that of quasi-omniscient dark ladies?

Nikolas,

In answer to your question: Who is Mr. McFarland?

Answer: Another press agent for Msgr. Fellay's pro-prelature cabal.

Rhetorically, Father Rostand has been beaten about the face and head,
so Mr. McFarland, a native English speaker, is here to help him out.


 

the statements made by Surrendered SSPX Priests that if they watched pablo the Mexican productions videos of SSPX Priest sermons on you tube they will be expelled, the terrorizing of helpless Faithful, the demands within the Society for the Faithful not to view the internet or blogs that discuss the sell out; those are just Conspiracy Theories, Right?

As bernadette would say:

"cult alert"

You know you have a problem when so much as watching a sermon that questions Bishop Fellay is considered unacceptable.  

People who believe that have stopped having Faith in Christ and have put their Faith in the SSPX leadership in a manner that is strongly suggestive of a cult.

Mr. McFarland, you claim deafening silence from your opposition, but I claim you are deaf to the evidence that Menzingen has become diabolically disoriented and no longer has the will to vigilantly defend the faith:

What Bishop Fellay said in the CNS interview:
1) Those things we thought came from VII, we see from the negotiations, that they do not come from VII but from a false hermeneutic.  
2) After all, the religious liberty of VII is a very narrow religious liberty!
3) To the question, is VII part of the church's tradition:  I hope so!

From the DICI interview:
1) To the prospect of difficulties (i.e. restrictions on the Society's apostolate) arising from putting the society under the control of the NO bishops:  the flippant answer, "Since when is life without difficulties?"  As though the inability to minister to lost souls is after all a small matter!
2) When it is suggested that closer collaboration with the NO as a regularized entity might result in NO bishops coming to SSPX chapels and seminaries to say Mass, confirm, or ordain priests, he does not rule out the possibility.

At ordinations in Econe:
1) Bishop Fellay was unable to make critical distinctions, a) between actually being Catholic and being recognized as Catholic by the conciliar Roman authorities, b) between eternal Rome and conciliar Rome.
2) Evinced an emotional longing for recognition that is divorced from the reality that those whose recognition he longs for are objectively (not subjectively) heretics.
3)Cruelly refused ordinations at the last minute to properly prepared men with unquestioned vocations to the priesthood on the basis of a disagreement with their superiors as to the prudence of making a deal with apostate Rome.

Bishop Fellay's response to the objections of the other three bishops to a deal without doctrinal agreement was to parrot the Novus Ordo canard of the last 40-plus years that principled resistors to the destruction wrought by the conciliar popes are nothing more than schismatics and sedevacantists.  

What Bishop Fellay as been publicly willing to do:
1) Put the Society under the authority of the NO bishops, conceding them the power to deny expansion of the society's apostolate, and according to Bp. Tissier, including the right to review "recent foundations."
2) Submit to an agreement that unilaterally excludes the other three bishops who, as Rome clearly stated, would be dealt with "singularly and separately.  Thus Bishop Fellay chooses to embrace conciliar Rome at the inexcusable cost of the unity of the Society.
3) In contrast to the example set by the founder of the society, pursue extended negotiations with the declared enemies of the faith and of the Society in utter secrecy, apparently excluding even the other three bishops from the particulars of his efforts to singlehandedly turn the Society over to conciliar Rome.  
4) Authorize the publication by Fr. Iscara of the shameful St. Basil's Economy of Silence with Heretics, and an overview of the history of heresies in the church which purports to prove that this crisis is no different than past crises in the church and requires a long slow work of reformation from the inside.  This new argument directly contradicts the society's own publication, "Catechism of the Crisis in the Church" and subverts Our Blessed Mother's promise of the triumph of her Immaculate Heart.
5) Resort to the same specious tactics adopted by the enemies of the faith and of Christ's church, demanding obedience to his person and his authority as above all principles and exigencies, and in contradiction to right reason, characterizing disobedience as equivalent to schism and the error of sedevacantism.

Really, Mr. McFarland, in the face of what should qualify as scandalous departure from the spirit of and direction set by the Society's founder by the time of his death, how is one to understand your intractable commitment to the new course set by Bishop Fellay?  

In retrospect, we can question the willingness of Bishop Fellay to oppose the specific instruction of Archbishop Lefebvre that the four bishops he ordained NOT hold the office of Superior General.  Furthermore, Bishop Fellay, on his election to replace Father Schmidberger, pointed out that it would be an extraordinary thing for the Superior General to serve more than one term, and thus it was normal for Fr. Schmidberger to be replaced.  Developments seem to have borne out the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre and the wisdom of maintaining a normal rotation of Superiors General.                    


 

 

I had been thinking of writing to Bp. Williamson and asking him the same question I've asked Doctor White and others: what is your evidence that the SSPX is selling out?  So far, the response has been deafening silence.

With his latest Eleison Comments, it appears that the best he can do is to summarize the complaints of an anonymous lady who condemns the performance of the SSPX throughout the United States.  On firsthand experience sitting in some/most/all of the American chapels?  Bp. Williamson doesn't say.  I think it fair to conjecture that Bp. Williamson doesn't know.

But after tut-tutting a bit about her "darkness," he goes on to treat her indictment as if it were proven, and finally ends up calling on the laity to take matters into their own hands, on the evidence of Sr. Lucy (Sr. Lucy I or Sr. Lucy II?  Looks like II.).

The British intelligentsia have the gift of straightfacedly treating complete balderdash as if it were the veriest common sense.  It seems that Bp. Williamson has heretofore unrecognized abilities of that sort.

Notice also that he effectively speaks of the SSPX in the third person.  I wrote to him a few weeks ago and among other things suggested that he stop the charade and quit the Society.  Then at least he wouldn't be biting the hand that feeds him.  Instead, he seems content to nip at Bp. Fellay's heels but without giving grounds for being sacked.

But while I'm here, can any of you provide any evidence of the SSPX sellout better than that of quasi-omniscient dark ladies?

 

I think John McWonderland is a troll messenger of Fr. Rostand.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Hey, McFarland, why don't you come on in and prove that you're not a Freemason?

Maybe you can demonstrate the Grand Hailing Sign of Distress while you're at it!  :roll-laugh2:

That was really vicious.  He is the father of a recently ordained SSPX priest.  We may not go around making accusations of such grievous nature.    

The disgrace will be if his son,  the newly ordained priest, is just like his him...

McWonderland wouldn't be able to affect as many souls with liberalism as a Priest would so let's hope this isn't the case.

God help us!