Author Topic: Father Angles is for an accord with Rome  (Read 21410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Unbrandable

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • Reputation: +196/-40
  • Gender: Male
Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
« on: March 03, 2014, 05:37:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Below is an excerpt from Father Pinaud’s conference in Gironde on February 15, 2014 (which can be found on the website, LaSapiniere). Just before this part, Father Pinaud tells how Bishop Tissier wrote him a letter on December 31, 2013, saying in it that he (Father Pinaud) should have taken Father Angles as a lawyer for his court case. Father Pinaud continues:


    The advice of choosing Father Angles as a lawyer is evidently late, on December 31, 2013, but it turns out that I contacted Father Ramon Angles at the right time.  It was on July 7, 2013 ...

    Father Angles was one of the three lawyers proposed by my judges, after they refused Father Pivert without an avowed reason ...

    This proposal, because it came from my judges, didn’t  inspire confidence in me - you understand me. But on the advice of a colleague, among the first [SSPX priests] and who assured me of the legal competence of  Father Angles and especially that he wouldn’t be taken in by anybody and would in no way be impressed by Menzingen , one Sunday afternoon, I decided to call this friendly colleague .

    Father Angles was surprised to learn that the Tribunal had designated him as a possible attorney with Father Puga and Father Laroche.

    "Who is the fool who put my name on this list,” he let out at me. “I cannot be your lawyer because I am the legal adviser of Bishop Fellay. And must I tell you, if you are in the Resistance, it is not my cup of tea, because an accord really must be made. It is necessary, otherwise we will end up schismatic . Look at Bishop Fellay. He has more power than the Pope. It is no longer supportable. I resigned from my office as a major superior because I don’t want to support it anymore. Unfortunately, the accord cannot be made with Bishop Fellay. He is completely discredited. He cannot say two words without casting doubt all over the world. "

    He asked me a few questions to understand my situation. He asked me if I had interviews with the superiors, particularly Bishop Fellay. I told him that I had not had any contact with any superior... He asked me to read him the famous Penal Decree which I had been subject to since March 7th and which intrigued him alot.

    After having read the first words : The holy name of God invoked! I heard a huge burst of laughter. "It's a show,” he said to me ,” a great comedy orchestrated to impress you. This penal decree is ridiculous and moreover, it is worthless... you know, this administrative procedure code of 1983 is an easy means  given to the Superior General to punish you without having to do it himself. "

    Our conversation lasted two hours. I really regretted that Father Angles could not be my lawyer .... Before hanging up, he also advised me to still be very careful - obviously -:"They are capable of anything,”he said to me,“make copies of your documents and put them under lock and key . "

    Offline Domitilla

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 479
    • Reputation: +1009/-29
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #1 on: March 03, 2014, 06:27:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for this, Unbrandable.   Very, very interesting ...


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1392
    • Reputation: +1344/-140
    • Gender: Female
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #2 on: March 03, 2014, 07:41:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wasn't Father Angles a guest at the last General Chapter?
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Machabees

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 826
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #3 on: March 03, 2014, 09:03:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Unbrandable
    Below is an excerpt from Father Pinaud’s conference in Gironde on February 15, 2014 (which can be found on the website, LaSapiniere). Just before this part, Father Pinaud tells how Bishop Tissier wrote him a letter on December 31, 2013, saying in it that he (Father Pinaud) should have taken Father Angles as a lawyer for his court case. Father Pinaud continues:


    The advice of choosing Father Angles as a lawyer is evidently late, on December 31, 2013, but it turns out that I contacted Father Ramon Angles at the right time.  It was on July 7, 2013 ...

    Father Angles was one of the three lawyers proposed by my judges, after they refused Father Pivert without an avowed reason ...

    This proposal, because it came from my judges, didn’t  inspire confidence in me - you understand me. But on the advice of a colleague, among the first [SSPX priests] and who assured me of the legal competence of  Father Angles and especially that he wouldn’t be taken in by anybody and would in no way be impressed by Menzingen , one Sunday afternoon, I decided to call this friendly colleague .

    Father Angles was surprised to learn that the Tribunal had designated him as a possible attorney with Father Puga and Father Laroche.

    "Who is the fool who put my name on this list,” he let out at me. “I cannot be your lawyer because I am the legal adviser of Bishop Fellay. And must I tell you, if you are in the Resistance, it is not my cup of tea, because an accord really must be made. It is necessary, otherwise we will end up schismatic . Look at Bishop Fellay. He has more power than the Pope. It is no longer supportable. I resigned from my office as a major superior because I don’t want to support it anymore. Unfortunately, the accord cannot be made with Bishop Fellay. He is completely discredited. He cannot say two words without casting doubt all over the world. "

    He asked me a few questions to understand my situation. He asked me if I had interviews with the superiors, particularly Bishop Fellay. I told him that I had not had any contact with any superior... He asked me to read him the famous Penal Decree which I had been subject to since March 7th and which intrigued him alot.

    After having read the first words : The holy name of God invoked! I heard a huge burst of laughter. "It's a show,” he said to me ,” a great comedy orchestrated to impress you. This penal decree is ridiculous and moreover, it is worthless... you know, this administrative procedure code of 1983 is an easy means  given to the Superior General to punish you without having to do it himself. "

    Our conversation lasted two hours. I really regretted that Father Angles could not be my lawyer .... Before hanging up, he also advised me to still be very careful - obviously -:"They are capable of anything,”he said to me,“make copies of your documents and put them under lock and key . "


    Fr. Angles is the "Legal Adviser" for Bishop Fellay, and yet says such a truthful statement against him: "Unfortunately, the accord cannot be made with Bishop Fellay. He is completely discredited. He cannot say two words without casting doubt all over the world."

    Yes, even amongst their own...the Truth does comes out.

    Offline Ferdinand

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 391
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #4 on: March 04, 2014, 09:38:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Whatever side of the coin Fr. Machiavelli appears to be on... he is not to be trusted.

    You have been warned!


    Offline SoldierOfChrist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 573
    • Reputation: +361/-19
    • Gender: Male
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #5 on: March 04, 2014, 11:23:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If Father Angles is arguing that an accord has to be reached in order to avoid the situation of the society claiming Church authority which it does not rightfully have, then I disagree.  The position of ABL was always that we would have to wait until Rome converts back to the True Faith.  Until that happens, our priests have extraordinary authority to say Mass and to take confessions, because they are the only truly Catholic game in town.  It would appear that Rome has not converted, and is drifting further and further from Truth.  It seems only logical that the SSPX would begin to take on a hierarchical structure, in order to remain strong, while waiting out the storm of heresy, which is sweeping through the conciliar church.  I don't see that as a problem.  It is temporary.  Might be better if we had a priest for an SG however, instead of a bishop.

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #6 on: March 05, 2014, 05:17:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I always doubted that the SSPX leadership was that serious in insisting that Rome returns "to the True Faith". It was always eagerly waiting to embrace the devils in Rome if the practical terms were right. To some extent trad Catholics were duped into thinking the Society had firm policies when all the time it was and is wandering all over the place. ABL wanted to corner the market and suck in big money for his particular 'experiment of tradition' and so played to many different audiences. To say that his was the only game in town undermines the capacity of the trad movement to respond effectively to Rome's defection and leaves it to vacillating bishops and teams of groupie priests to fill the huge vacuum.  

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3718/-290
    • Gender: Male
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #7 on: March 05, 2014, 07:48:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    I always doubted that the SSPX leadership was that serious in insisting that Rome returns "to the True Faith". It was always eagerly waiting to embrace the devils in Rome if the practical terms were right. To some extent trad Catholics were duped into thinking the Society had firm policies when all the time it was and is wandering all over the place. ABL wanted to corner the market and suck in big money for his particular 'experiment of tradition' and so played to many different audiences. To say that his was the only game in town undermines the capacity of the trad movement to respond effectively to Rome's defection and leaves it to vacillating bishops and teams of groupie priests to fill the huge vacuum.  


    Now that you put it in those terms, Fellay became a bishop due to benefactor concerns, and there is never a shortage of quotes from the Archbishop available which are used to support one side of the argument and then others which are useful for the opposing side.  Perhaps Bishop Fellay is continuing on in what he believes has always been done?

    Quote
    To say that his was the only game in town undermines the capacity of the trad movement to respond effectively to Rome's defection and leaves it to vacillating bishops and teams of groupie priests to fill the huge vacuum.


    Oh! how true.


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1392
    • Reputation: +1344/-140
    • Gender: Female
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #8 on: March 05, 2014, 01:43:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    I always doubted that the SSPX leadership was that serious in insisting that Rome returns "to the True Faith". It was always eagerly waiting to embrace the devils in Rome if the practical terms were right. To some extent trad Catholics were duped into thinking the Society had firm policies when all the time it was and is wandering all over the place. ABL wanted to corner the market and suck in big money for his particular 'experiment of tradition' and so played to many different audiences. To say that his was the only game in town undermines the capacity of the trad movement to respond effectively to Rome's defection and leaves it to vacillating bishops and teams of groupie priests to fill the huge vacuum.  



    There is an open letter that was first printed in Culture Wars Magazine entitled, Why the SSPX Cannot Effectively Defend Catholic Tradition.  Its point was that Archbishop Lefebvre failed to defend two absolutely essential points: The immutability of Catholic Dogma, and the Immemorial Roman rite of Mass as necessary attribute of the Catholic Faith and not a simple matter of Church discipline.  +Lefebvre held that any "good" Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. could gain eternal salvation by being a "good" Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc.  He held that the dogma of faith that there is 'no salvation outside the Catholic Church' was dispensed by "invincible ignorance."  This means that dogma (in the category of Truth-Falsehood) , which are truths infallibly defined as formal objects of divine and Catholic Faith, could be treated in the same manner as laws, commands, injunctions, directives, counsels, etc. (in the category of Authority-Obedience), which do not bind in the cases of impossibility, undue burden or hardship.  Thus truth can be dispensed with.

    The other serious problem was that he held that the liturgy was a matter of pure Church discipline open to the free will of the legislator to do as he pleased.   His only objection was that the legislator could not introduce anything "harmful to the faith" and he made himself the judge as to what was "harmful."  Thus the idea of liturgical experts and liturgical committees were acceptable to him.  +Lefebvre accepted all the liturgical changes until about 1965 as well as some beyond that.  It is reported that he concelebrated the Novus Ordo in the early 70s at his sisters funeral.  It was not until 1983 that he adopted the 1962 Bugnini liturgical books for the SSPX.  He offered no appeal to the dogmas of Catholic Faith on the authority of Ecclesiastical Tradition or from the dogma from the Council of Trent defending the "received and approved" rites of the Church.  He never rejected completely the treatment of the 1962 Missal as an Indult as being unheard of and impossible impositions against an immemorial tradition.  

    What should be remembered is that +Lefebvre was a late comer to the defense of the Catholic tradition.  Fr. Gommar DePauw, a peritus at Vatican II, was active before +Lefebvre and so was Fr. Francis Fenton and the ORCM which established traditional Mass centers.  When the SSPX came to the U.S. they established their Mass centers in competition with other traditional Masses in a direct effort to put them out of business arguing that they had a bishop thus only they could provide all the sacraments.  That is exactly what the Fraternity of St. Peter did after 1988 against the SSPX.  +Lefebvre never offered to ordain priests for any organization that he did not control and part of his control required the acceptance of his positions on the nature of dogma and liturgy.  Bishop Fellay has continued in the same manner.  Even the nine priests who left the SSPX in 1983 took these two pieces of baggage with them.  

    A sedevancantist bishop once suggested to me that +Lefebvre may have been an agent provocateur.  That he actively worked to destroyed any opposition to modernist Rome that he did not control while forming his opposition on first principles that would ultimately be indefensible and collapse. I did not agree and still do not think so.  I think +Lefebvre had made many compromises with regard to dogma and liturgy before he saw the danger.  Once seeing the danger he did not address these fundamental errors in his thinking and he tried to apply outdated forms of opposition that could not work.  

    +Williamson will not be able to help unless a new approach is taken.  IMO he should ordain priests and consecrate bishops for any group or organization that will defend the immutability of dogma and the fundamental right of every Catholic Faithful to the "received and approved" rites of the Catholic Church.   Guerrilla warfare should be the strategic model in a loose confederation without any central command.   Traditional Catholics should not try to create a parallel Church with a set consolidated hierarchical structure in opposition, but small diffused groups that can maintain a permanent resident priest in opposition to their local ordinaries.  The formation of priests will also need a different approach and there are many historical models that should be considered.  The internet would be a big help in making earlier models more successful for education of priests today and social networks could also be used for this purpose.
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline SoldierOfChrist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 573
    • Reputation: +361/-19
    • Gender: Male
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #9 on: March 05, 2014, 02:08:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • By "in town", I meant literally, in a given vicinity in which it functions.  I have full confidence in the trad community to respond to vacuums.  We try not to put our chapels right next door to each other though.  Although we have no problem putting chapels down the street from NO churches.  My statement was in no way meant to detract from other trad chapels, priests, and organizations.  My statement applies to them too.  They have extraordinary authority to provide valid and licit sacraments wherever there is a vacuum.  I should have been more clear about that when I first commented.

    Offline Azul

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 51
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #10 on: March 05, 2014, 03:01:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    I always doubted that the SSPX leadership was that serious in insisting that Rome returns "to the True Faith". It was always eagerly waiting to embrace the devils in Rome if the practical terms were right. To some extent trad Catholics were duped into thinking the Society had firm policies when all the time it was and is wandering all over the place. ABL wanted to corner the market and suck in big money for his particular 'experiment of tradition' and so played to many different audiences. To say that his was the only game in town undermines the capacity of the trad movement to respond effectively to Rome's defection and leaves it to vacillating bishops and teams of groupie priests to fill the huge vacuum.  


    You are a liar and obviously malicious! How dare you say such things. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was perhaps the greatest saint of the 20th century. He was another St. Francis in that he held up the Church almost single handedly and preserved the Mass and Tradition for fools like you.





    Offline holysoulsacademy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 591
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #11 on: March 05, 2014, 03:44:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    Quote from: Wessex
    I always doubted that the SSPX leadership was that serious in insisting that Rome returns "to the True Faith". It was always eagerly waiting to embrace the devils in Rome if the practical terms were right. To some extent trad Catholics were duped into thinking the Society had firm policies when all the time it was and is wandering all over the place. ABL wanted to corner the market and suck in big money for his particular 'experiment of tradition' and so played to many different audiences. To say that his was the only game in town undermines the capacity of the trad movement to respond effectively to Rome's defection and leaves it to vacillating bishops and teams of groupie priests to fill the huge vacuum.  



    There is an open letter that was first printed in Culture Wars Magazine entitled, Why the SSPX Cannot Effectively Defend Catholic Tradition.  Its point was that Archbishop Lefebvre failed to defend two absolutely essential points: The immutability of Catholic Dogma, and the Immemorial Roman rite of Mass as A necessary attribute of the Catholic Faith and not a simple matter of Church discipline.  +Lefebvre held that any "good" Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. could gain eternal salvation by being a "good" Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc.  He held that the dogma of faith that there is 'no salvation outside the Catholic Church' was dispensed by "invincible ignorance."  This means that dogma (in the category of Truth-Falsehood) , which are truths infallibly defined as formal objects of divine and Catholic Faith, could be treated in the same manner as laws, commands, injunctions, directives, counsels, etc. (in the category of Authority-Obedience), which do not bind in the cases of impossibility, undue burden or hardship.  Thus truth can be dispensed with.

    The other serious problem was that he held that the liturgy was a matter of pure Church discipline open to the free will of the legislator to do as he pleased.   His only objection was that the legislator could not introduce anything "harmful to the faith" and he made himself the judge as to what was "harmful."  Thus the idea of liturgical experts and liturgical committees were acceptable to him.  +Lefebvre accepted all the liturgical changes until about 1965 as well as some beyond that.  It is reported that he concelebrated the Novus Ordo in the early 70s at his sisters funeral.  It was not until 1983 that he adopted the 1962 Bugnini liturgical books for the SSPX.  He offered no appeal to the dogmas of Catholic Faith on the authority of Ecclesiastical Tradition or from the dogma from the Council of Trent defending the "received and approved" rites of the Church.  He never rejected completely the treatment of the 1962 Missal as an Indult as being unheard of and impossible impositions against an immemorial tradition.  

    What should be remembered is that +Lefebvre was a late comer to the defense of the Catholic tradition.  Fr. Gommar DePauw, a peritus at Vatican II, was active before +Lefebvre and so was Fr. Francis Fenton and the ORCM which established traditional Mass centers.  When the SSPX came to the U.S. they established their Mass centers in competition with other traditional Masses in a direct effort to put them out of business arguing that they had a bishop thus only they could provide all the sacraments.  That is exactly what the Fraternity of St. Peter did after 1988 against the SSPX.  +Lefebvre never offered to ordain priests for any organization that he did not control and part of his control required the acceptance of his positions on the nature of dogma and liturgy.  Bishop Fellay has continued in the same manner.  Even the nine priests who left the SSPX in 1983 took these two pieces of baggage with them.  

    A sedevancantist bishop once suggested to me that +Lefebvre may have been an agent provocateur.  That he actively worked to destroyed any opposition to modernist Rome that he did not control while forming his opposition on first principles that would ultimately be indefensible and collapse. I did not agree and still do not think so.  I think +Lefebvre had made many compromises with regard to dogma and liturgy before he saw the danger.  Once seeing the danger he did not address these fundamental errors in his thinking and he tried to apply outdated forms of opposition that could not work.  

    +Williamson will not be able to help unless a new approach is taken.  IMO he should ordain priests and consecrate bishops for any group or organization that will defend the immutability of dogma and the fundamental right of every Catholic Faithful to the "received and approved" rites of the Catholic Church.   Guerrilla warfare should be the strategic model in a loose confederation without any central command.   Traditional Catholics should not try to create a parallel Church with a set consolidated hierarchical structure in opposition, but small diffused groups that can maintain a permanent resident priest in opposition to their local ordinaries.  The formation of priests will also need a different approach and there are many historical models that should be considered.  The internet would be a big help in making earlier models more successful for education of priests today and social networks could also be used for this purpose.


    I have always had similar sentiments and queries regarding a lot of the issues you have brought up.  At this point in time I would not go so far as to say that +Lefebvre had ulterior motives or malicious intentions.  I firmly believe though that he did what he thought and could discern was best at the time and  revoking his signature from that 1988 Protocol and consecrating the four Bishops was providential.
    (pls. pardon my correction, the missing A was critical to the sentence structure)

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3718/-290
    • Gender: Male
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #12 on: March 05, 2014, 07:11:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    Quote from: Wessex
    I always doubted that the SSPX leadership was that serious in insisting that Rome returns "to the True Faith". It was always eagerly waiting to embrace the devils in Rome if the practical terms were right. To some extent trad Catholics were duped into thinking the Society had firm policies when all the time it was and is wandering all over the place. ABL wanted to corner the market and suck in big money for his particular 'experiment of tradition' and so played to many different audiences. To say that his was the only game in town undermines the capacity of the trad movement to respond effectively to Rome's defection and leaves it to vacillating bishops and teams of groupie priests to fill the huge vacuum.  



    There is an open letter that was first printed in Culture Wars Magazine entitled, Why the SSPX Cannot Effectively Defend Catholic Tradition.  Its point was that Archbishop Lefebvre failed to defend two absolutely essential points: The immutability of Catholic Dogma, and the Immemorial Roman rite of Mass as necessary attribute of the Catholic Faith and not a simple matter of Church discipline.  +Lefebvre held that any "good" Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. could gain eternal salvation by being a "good" Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, etc.  He held that the dogma of faith that there is 'no salvation outside the Catholic Church' was dispensed by "invincible ignorance."  This means that dogma (in the category of Truth-Falsehood) , which are truths infallibly defined as formal objects of divine and Catholic Faith, could be treated in the same manner as laws, commands, injunctions, directives, counsels, etc. (in the category of Authority-Obedience), which do not bind in the cases of impossibility, undue burden or hardship.  Thus truth can be dispensed with.

    The other serious problem was that he held that the liturgy was a matter of pure Church discipline open to the free will of the legislator to do as he pleased.   His only objection was that the legislator could not introduce anything "harmful to the faith" and he made himself the judge as to what was "harmful."  Thus the idea of liturgical experts and liturgical committees were acceptable to him.  +Lefebvre accepted all the liturgical changes until about 1965 as well as some beyond that.  It is reported that he concelebrated the Novus Ordo in the early 70s at his sisters funeral.  It was not until 1983 that he adopted the 1962 Bugnini liturgical books for the SSPX.  He offered no appeal to the dogmas of Catholic Faith on the authority of Ecclesiastical Tradition or from the dogma from the Council of Trent defending the "received and approved" rites of the Church.  He never rejected completely the treatment of the 1962 Missal as an Indult as being unheard of and impossible impositions against an immemorial tradition.  

    What should be remembered is that +Lefebvre was a late comer to the defense of the Catholic tradition.  Fr. Gommar DePauw, a peritus at Vatican II, was active before +Lefebvre and so was Fr. Francis Fenton and the ORCM which established traditional Mass centers.  When the SSPX came to the U.S. they established their Mass centers in competition with other traditional Masses in a direct effort to put them out of business arguing that they had a bishop thus only they could provide all the sacraments.  That is exactly what the Fraternity of St. Peter did after 1988 against the SSPX.  +Lefebvre never offered to ordain priests for any organization that he did not control and part of his control required the acceptance of his positions on the nature of dogma and liturgy.  Bishop Fellay has continued in the same manner.  Even the nine priests who left the SSPX in 1983 took these two pieces of baggage with them.  

    A sedevancantist bishop once suggested to me that +Lefebvre may have been an agent provocateur.  That he actively worked to destroyed any opposition to modernist Rome that he did not control while forming his opposition on first principles that would ultimately be indefensible and collapse. I did not agree and still do not think so.  I think +Lefebvre had made many compromises with regard to dogma and liturgy before he saw the danger.  Once seeing the danger he did not address these fundamental errors in his thinking and he tried to apply outdated forms of opposition that could not work.  

    +Williamson will not be able to help unless a new approach is taken.  IMO he should ordain priests and consecrate bishops for any group or organization that will defend the immutability of dogma and the fundamental right of every Catholic Faithful to the "received and approved" rites of the Catholic Church.   Guerrilla warfare should be the strategic model in a loose confederation without any central command.   Traditional Catholics should not try to create a parallel Church with a set consolidated hierarchical structure in opposition, but small diffused groups that can maintain a permanent resident priest in opposition to their local ordinaries.  The formation of priests will also need a different approach and there are many historical models that should be considered.  The internet would be a big help in making earlier models more successful for education of priests today and social networks could also be used for this purpose.

    You raise a number of serious problems which have always been with the Society, and some even now, with the resistance as well.

    Offline cosmas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 451
    • Reputation: +253/-138
    • Gender: Male
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #13 on: March 05, 2014, 10:23:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • FR. ANGLES HAS GOT TO BE JOKING, HE SUPPOSEDLY KNOWS CANON LAW . HOW CAN HE SAY WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO ROME WE MIGHT GO INTO SCHISM. IT SEEMS HE'S DRANK THE COOL AID. WE HAVEN'T GONE ANYWHERE. ROME HAS GONE INTO SCHISM THEY HAVE ABANDONED TRADITION FOR A NEW CHURCH A CHURCH WITH A SO CALLED LIVING TRADITION THAT MOVES WITH THE TIMES, YOU KNOW STAYS UPDATED. THE CHURCH CHRIST SET UP IS REPUGNANT TO THEM . THEY WANT IT ABOUT THEM. THEY DON'T WANT THE ONE CHRIST SET UP. FR. ANGLES MUST BE GOING TO GREC CLASSES GETTING HIS MIND WASHED WITH THE REST OF FELLAYS CRONIES.

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Father Angles is for an accord with Rome
    « Reply #14 on: March 06, 2014, 06:11:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Was ABL a plant to corral trads? I would say no but his legacy would have been the same. He was a late comer to the trad scene after failing to get a plum job within the Roman bureaucracy. He was far too conservative for the new direction and so jumped at the chance of creating a base for 'old church' refugees. At the time the main issue was preserving the old Mass and priesthood which meant  access to a lot of disgruntled souls that would later consider alternatives to ABL's approach. The Society started coming apart when doctrine inevitably entered the scene and members and laity started thinking rather than feeling. The application of logic is always difficult where spiritual matters are concerned because certainty and mystery occupy different parts of the brain and it is rare to see them enjoy a happy correspondence. For this reason ABL was never going to stray far from his Alma Mater and logic was going to be a loser with his meandering style. I suppose we have to be thankful that there were some benefits on a good day. Bp. Fellay and Fr. Angles are merely expressing the mysterious side of ABL's character which included bursts of sudden affection for the Roman establishment.  Did he not know that the eyes of the world were on him?  

    It will be a difficult project to write an honest and objective biography of ABL. I hate the squeaky clean presentations that are written for captive audiences. Someone without a vested interest may attempt it one day.              


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16