Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)  (Read 2482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr G

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
  • Reputation: +409/-43
  • Gender: Male
**UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
« on: September 04, 2017, 07:52:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • From Sean Johnson's blog: http://sodalitium-pianum.com/doctrinal-study-of-the-capuchins-of-morgon-france-agreement-with-rome-hurts-the-church/

    [NB: We have now translated the General Conclusion to the Doctrinal Study, which comes at the end of this post]
    The Capuchin study, running nearly 100 pages, is titled, “In the Face of Roman Proposals: Can We Today Accept a Canonical Recognition on the Part of Neo-Modernist Rome?

    Though the study is not available in English, we translated the introduction of Christian Lasalle, as well as the PrefaceGeneral Introduction, and General Conclusion of Fr. Antoine de Fleurance (Father Guardian of Morgon), below, which will suffice to convey the general spirit of the document.
    For those of you who have a bit more patience, you can paste the study 5,000 characters at a time in the Google Translate page, and get passable results (Note: You may first have to download the study, save it, and then convert the saved document into Word before you will be able to copy/paste chunks of the document; this may also throw off the formatting of the document a bit).

    The introduction of Christian La Salle (Here):
    “On June 3, 2016, on the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Capuchins of Morgon distributed to their friends and to members of their Third Order a doctrinal study on the question of the relations of these traditional communities with conciliar Rome.
    In this almost 100-page document, written in a very scholastic method (St. Thomas Aquinas), the religious men put forward the deep reasons why the “agreement” with Rome, as envisaged today, seems harmful to the Church;
    Father Antoine, a superior referred to as “Father Guardian” of Morgon, was also the signatory of the salutary and courageous “Letter of the [French] Deans” on marriage, recalling the right of the faithful in this field and the true nature of the state of necessity that exists more than ever today, while denouncing the confusion linked to the will of some to rally to modernist Rome.
    We are profoundly thankful to our Capuchin brothers for this firm text…which for [over] one year has convinced and opened the eyes of a great number of priests and Catholics deceived by the liberal sirens.”

    Preface to the “Doctrinal Study” by Fr. Antoinde de Fleurance (Superior of Morgon):
    “In the current turmoil and confusion, we must remain faithful to and adhere to authentic Catholic principles. And in order that they may truly be the light that enlightens and guides our steps, we must draw the practical consequences and apply them rigorously in our everyday life and in our daily attitudes.

    Coherence and non-contradiction are the logical consequence of full and complete adherence to the truth.
    As Cardinal Pie said, charity, which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by truth, and it was in this spirit of charity that we wished to write these lines.

    It was above all under the gaze of God that this work was carried out, for it is to Him that we shall have to account for all our conduct; but it is also to be loyal to the heart of our thoughts on the question of the Roman propositions.
    Indeed, sharing for many years the same struggle as the other communities of Tradition, we had at heart to make known to those who are closer to us the way we perceive the present situation.
    We hope, in any case, that it will be in this spirit of peace and understanding that this work will be received.
    Deign Our Lady, faithful Virgin and Queen of Peace, maintain between us the supernatural bonds which unite us in truth and charity in her divine Son, Jesus Christ, our King.”
     
    General Introduction to the Doctrinal Study:
    “The possibility of a recognition of the works of Tradition by the present pope is mentioned more often. Can we accept this offer? The answers to this question are very divergent.

    On the one hand, it can be seen that Archbishop Lefebvre had long sought canonical recognition with the Rome of those days; if one refused, would it not be sedevacantism, at least practical, or even a schismatic attitude? Moreover, the situation today is no longer that in 1988. There were good reasons for refusing the Roman proposals, but now would not such a refusal be out of date? Indeed, we have seen, in recent times, especially during the Synod on the Family, the very strong reactions of certain prelates to the progressive line, something unimaginable a few years ago. Could we be at the beginning of a healthy reaction?

    Nevertheless, did not Archbishop Lefebvre also affirm that an agreement with a neo-modernist authority was impossible? Saying this, did he fall into sedevacantism? Finally, has the evolution of the situation in the Church, in recent years, constituted a change such that it would make canonical recognition possible today?

    Whatever the answer to these questions, their stakes are enormous: they present a truly moral problem.
    Indeed, if the answer is that, since the situation has changed, a canonical solution would no longer put our faith in danger, there is no longer any reason to refuse it; moreover, a refusal would expose us this time to a danger of schism.
    If, on the contrary, the answer is that the peril for our faith is always present, the Roman authorities expose us to heresy.
    Thus, schism or heresy: it is a question of eternal salvation.  In order to answer this moral problem, we will ask ourselves three questions.
    The first which comes naturally is the following: Has the situation in Rome improved since 1988 (question 1)? Indeed, during all the time that separates us from the consecrations, we had never changed our conduct. If today we envisage a canonical solution, still unthinkable a few years ago, must it not be that in Rome itself there have been changes?
    All this brings us back to the foundations of what has been our conduct so far: Can we accept a canonical recognition proposed by a neo-modernist authority
     (question 2)?

    Finally, would a refusal of such recognition not be sedevacantism, or even a schismatic attitude (question 3)?
    After that, we can conclude by answering the question posed at the beginning of this study.”
     
    General Conclusion of the Doctrinal Study:
    The canonical regularization process currently under way can be compared to the process of igniting a log of green wood. When it is thrown on the flame, it is incapable of catching fire, for there is an obstacle: the sap.  Then the flame begins to lick the log to warm it up and the sap comes out. When the latter is out, the log ignites.

    Similarly, in our case, there would be an obstacle to canonical status: it is the mutual mistrust between the conciliar world and ourselves. The gestures of “benevolence” on the part of the Pope is to bring down this obstacle. These gestures do not imply a formal canonical dependence on the Roman authorities.  The obstacle of mistrust once fallen, the greater will not prevent the granting of definitive status, this time with effective dependence on the Holy See.  Can we enter into such a canonical structure?

    To answer this question, in this conclusion, let us review the elements of this study:
    We wondered if the situation in Rome had changed to such a point, that a canonical solution could be envisaged today, which we regard as impossible at present. We were forced to observe that nothing essential had changed: the acts of the pope are more and more serious; the reaction of the conservatives, if it is courageous and deserves to be welcomed, does not call into question the principles of the crisis, on the contrary; the attitude of the Holy See with regard to what is traditional is not benevolent; finally, the requirements of Rome in relation to us are basically always the same (question 1).

    So what precisely are the bases of our previous refusals of an agreement with Rome? More precisely, can we accept an agreement with a neo-modernist? Such an acceptance would lead us into conciliar pluralism, would silence our attacks on modern errors and put our faith in an imminent danger. Consequently, the canonical solution can not be envisaged with a doctrinally converted Rome, and having proved its conversion by working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and fighting opponents of this reign (question 2).
    By placing ourselves in the hands of the Roman authorities, we would endanger our particular good no less than the common good of the Church.
    Our particular good: for we are responsible for our souls, and therefore for our faith; Now, without faith one can not be saved.  And no one can discharge himself of this responsibility over others.

    The common good of the Church: In fact, we are not masters of the faith, in the sense that we can not modify it at our will. It is the good of the Church because it is by faith that it lives from the life of its divine Spouse. It is a common good, not only because it is common to all Catholics, but because everyone – albeit not to the same extent- must retain it. Confirmation makes us soldiers of Christ: Every Christian must be ready to expose himself to defend the faith. And the sacerdotal character attached to the mission of the Church gives priests the sacred duty of preaching and defending it publicly by combating error.

    We are in the Church militant, attacked on all sides by error. To no longer publicly raise a voice against it is to become its accomplice.
    So it is impossible for us today to put ourselves in a canonical solution in the hands of the neo-modernist authorities, because of their neo-modernism.  This is the real obstacle to our recognition by these authorities.
    In so doing, far from calling into question the authority of the Pope, we are convinced that we render him the first service, which is that of truth (question 3). By our prayers, we beseech the Immaculate Heart of Mary to obtain the grace of a doctrinal conversion, in order that he may “confirm his brethren in faith.”
    We are aware that many friends do not share our opinion on the whole question. Certainly, these friendships are of great value to us, and we hope
     they will remain. But friendship with Jesus Christ prevails over them, and we prefer the latter to human friendships, if they were to put it in danger.
    No, we can not – non possumus – enter into a canonical structure submitting us to a modernist authority. We do not say this against our friends who feel they can enter. But we say that because it is our duty.

    It is our duty first of all towards our Lord and His holy Church; we have no right to expose ourselves to making peace with those who betray them.
    It is our duty then for ourselves, because we have our soul to save, and can not be saved without integrity.
    It is our duty to the brothers who have entered our community.  They entered to become saints in the school of St. Francis. However, the first
     the condition of holiness, is orthodoxy, which is placed in a near peril by a canonical solution.

    It is our duty to our Poor Clares. They trusted us by settling with us, depending on our community for the sacraments
     and chaplaincy. We can not deceive them and put them in an inextricable situation.

    It is our duty with regard to our tertiaries. They have to struggle hard in this world.  They too have trusted us to support them in this tough fight.
    Finally, it is our duty to the faithful to use our ministry.  We do not have the right to drive them slowly to the poisoned pastures of Vatican II.
    We know that some of those who have trusted us would like that we followed the movement and entered into the canonical structure, if Rome would grant the concession. Formerly, these dear friends thought as we did; we regret that they have changed. But we do not want them at all; we understand that the situation is very delicate and it is really not easy to see clearly. May these pages which have preceded have brought them some light. In any case, we pray for them. But we also pray for ourselves: “Watch and pray, divine Master, that you may not enter into temptation; for the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

    Yes, to watch: this is a fundamental condition in this fight. Faith is not enough not, one must still [exercise] lucidity and prudence.
    But this too is not enough: indeed, how many of our predecessors, since the Council, had seen clear and yet fell. In addition to lucidity, it is necessary to be strong, to hold out against everything, even if all the world would go against what we see to be the will of God. It requires a persevering force, against the wear and tear of time. And perseverance is above all a grace.

    Virgin as strong as an army in battle, Faithful Virgin, grant us the grace of strength and perseverance; grant it to all those we love! Saint Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, protect us.”

    Ladies and gentlemen, the Capuchins are officially and fully part of the Resistance (and have been for over a year).  Some of you might recall that I reported that news on ABLF3.com and elsewhere last year (See Here), but was accused by some of having “jumped the gun.”
    Now the proof is in the pudding.
    They simply go about things in their quiet monastic way.
    Please offer your prayers (and donations) to support them in their commitment to the restoration of the Church.
    They need us now.

    PS: In case you haven’t connected the dots yet, the Capuchins are not the only ones to have come on board with the Resistance in France.

    Tune back in in a couple days for more on that story.
     

    Offline Franciscan Solitary

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 258
    • Reputation: +158/-129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #1 on: September 05, 2017, 02:47:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • How express the profound effects that this brave act will have?  Now Our Lord can see that there is still the one true faith on earth.  Only a few faithful have lived to see this come to pass and they have all of us been crucified to shreds.  But such miraculous courage shows that Europe will return to her Roman Catholic roots and Christ the King will triumph over His enemies.  Now the die is truly cast and, so to speak, Caesar has crossed the Rubicon.  

    This humble Capuchin study is going to shake the Church of Rome to her foundations. 

     


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3716/-290
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #2 on: September 05, 2017, 08:25:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    This humble Capuchin study is going to shake the Church of Rome to her foundations.
    It might if Catholic were in charge there, but as it is, it will have little or no effect.  What care for sound doctrine does Francis have?  Or for that matter the apostates, heretics, and homos who inhabit the Vatican halls of power.
    The Talmudic overlords will smile once again.

    You see, the Church of Rome already holds sound Christian doctrine, but the conciliar entity simply does not care about it, and not until it is swept aside will the True Church be able to break the conciliar camoflage in which She has been ensnared by the wickedness of these faithless men.

    Offline A Resistor

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 3
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #3 on: September 05, 2017, 11:20:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • This simply doesn't add up.

    The study is over a year old so it's hardly new "news", yet it is being promoted such. The Capuchins of Morgon were present at the Econe ordinations and the SSPX Fatima pilgrimage so they're hardly with the Resistance, yet it is being promoted such. The simple fact is that the Capuchins remain with the SSPX and have now banned the distribution of their study. It seems some people are exploiting this study for their own ends.

    The study itself reveals nothing. Over a hundred pages that leads to the conclusion:

    "it is impossible for us today to put ourselves in a canonical solution in the hands of the neo-modernist authorities, because of their neo-modernism."

    Who'd have thought it? Neo-modernist espouses neo-modernism, but now they say it, it's so blindingly obvious!

    Why then did the archbishop do a deal with neo-modernist authorities? Was he wrong or are there different degrees of neo-modernism, some of which are acceptable? If the Capuchins' conclusion is black and white then the archbishop was wrong. If there are grey areas then they need to specify the criteria for judging, but all in all their study answer nothing. Let them go back and answer these more fundamental questions.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4259
    • Reputation: +3951/-1254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #4 on: September 06, 2017, 06:49:21 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hmm...

    I will be attending an SSPX Mass this Sunday.

    Does that mean I am not Resistance?

    Do you think Bishop Fellay would say I am not Resistance?

    Would anyone other than the 250 Pfeifferian zealots left in the world say I am not Resistance?

    What qualifies one as Resistance is precisely what the word implies: Resistance to the ralliement of Menzingen.

    The Capuchins have made such resistance quite clear in their study.

    More than this, Bishop de Galarreta has admitted that he no longer has any jurisdiction over them (in the article about the dissolution of the Steffeshausen Dominicans).

    If you would add an additional criteria (i.e., no contact with the SSPX), then the "Resistance" is whittled back down to the 250 Pfeifferian zealots (like you), which is really the heart of your objection: If they are not affiliated to Jonestown, they are not really Resistance.

    Sigh..
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Franciscan Solitary

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 258
    • Reputation: +158/-129
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #5 on: September 06, 2017, 01:05:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It might if Catholic were in charge there, but as it is, it will have little or no effect.  What care for sound doctrine does Francis have?  Or for that matter the apostates, heretics, and homos who inhabit the Vatican halls of power.
    The Talmudic overlords will smile once again.

    You see, the Church of Rome already holds sound Christian doctrine, but the conciliar entity simply does not care about it, and not until it is swept aside will the True Church be able to break the conciliar camoflage in which She has been ensnared by the wickedness of these faithless men.
    In this blogger's view Mr. JPaul's objection above misses the relevant issue:  Of course the existing Vatican is beyond hope and, like Ancient Carthage, must be destroyed one way or another.  But the relevant issue is that Morgon and the four Resistance bishops are providing the spiritual direction for the mainstream of contemporary Pan-European Nationalism.  Exactly as Roman Catholic clergy ought to do.  In spiritual terms the existing Protestant laity revolves around the Catholic laity and together they very much are the driving force and leadership of the contemporary Nationalism in the Western world.  The main ingredient they have sorely lacked has been real spiritual direction from the Roman Catholic clergy.  Now that absolutely crucial guidance is lacking no more.

    Deo gratias.

    P.S.:  The attached file below from You Tube might provide some clearer sense of what this blogger is referring to here.  It's in Italian, but the English captions are easy to read.  (Am hoping the download will work on CathInfo.)

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2939
    • Reputation: +1448/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #6 on: September 06, 2017, 01:43:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Ladies and gentlemen, the Capuchins are officially and fully part of the Resistance (and have been for over a year).  Some of you might recall that I reported that news on ABLF3.com and elsewhere last year (See Here), but was accused by some of having “jumped the gun.”
    Now the proof is in the pudding.
    They simply go about things in their quiet monastic way.
    Please offer your prayers (and donations) to support them in their commitment to the restoration of the Church.
    They need us now.

    PS: In case you haven’t connected the dots yet, the Capuchins are not the only ones to have come on board with the Resistance in France.

    Tune back in in a couple days for more on that story.
     

    Have the Capuchins actually stated that they are now part of the Resistance? I have looked for some type of statement from them regarding this, but haven't seen one. Maybe I missed it.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4259
    • Reputation: +3951/-1254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #7 on: September 06, 2017, 02:42:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Have the Capuchins actually stated that they are now part of the Resistance? I have looked for some type of statement from them regarding this, but haven't seen one. Maybe I missed it.
    Hello Meg-
    To still be asking this question after my previous post implies you were not satisfied with my response.
    So I guess I would need to ask you: "What is the Resistance?"
    How would you define it?
    What are its essential criteria?
    In 2011, to be "Resistance" simply meant to be part of a group of concerned SSPXers who wanted to form a contingency plan in case +BF sold out the Society.
    By 2012, being "Resistance" meant to be opposed to the practical accord with unconverted Rome which Bishop Fellay had proposed.
    Already at that time, some were trying to add additional criteria to what they considered was necessary to qualify as "Resiatance" (e.g., You must "red light" all SSPX Masses/sacraments).
    By 2014, you were or were not "Resistance" depending on whether you supported Boston or the Bishop.
    And in 2017, the question is asked whether former SSPX priests exercising independent apostolates (per Bishop Williamson's view) are "Resistance" properly so-called at all, seeing as they show no desire to continue in a religious congregation similar to the one which they left.
    And what about oddballs like Fr. Gavin Bitzer (i.e., the independent Kentucky Feenyite whose parish is visited by +BW)?  Is he "Resistance?  The Cor Mariae forum would say "no way," but they suffer from amnesia, as they list him among Resistance priests here:http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/statistics-of-the-resistance-movement.3423/  What hypocrites for excoriating Bishop Williamson last year on his visit there, eh?
    To me, there are only two essential criterion to be qualified as "Resistance" (and all can take it or leave it; it matters very little to me):
    1) You oppose the ralliement of the SSPX;
    2) Excepting necessity, you reject receiving the sacraments which the SSPX has placed under the jurisdiction of conciliar authorities.
    Now let's cover what we know of Morgon in the last 12-14 months:
    1) They publish a study which explains why they cannot follow the SSPX into Rome, and delivered it to Bishop Fellay;
    2) Bishop de Gallareta states he no longer has any jurisdiction over them (i.e., they are no longer subject to Menzingen's control);
    3) They harbour priests who flee the SSPX because of their opposition to Menzingen's ralliement.
    If despite all this, these Friars desire to maintain as good a relationship as is possible amidst the strained circumstances, I hardly think it grounds to call into question their position.
    I do the same thing at my own SSPX chapel when the Resistance is not in town.
    Sure, it would be nice if Morgon would hop on the internet and publish a statement saying, "We have joined the Resistance!"
    But that is not the monastic way.
    Fr. Chazal's brother is a Friar there, and he told Fr. Chazal they all share exactly the same positions as we do.
    Now if you are a Pfeifferite, that is still problematic for you, since according to their criteria, Fr. Chazal himself is not Resistance.
    But for the rest of the world, Fr. Chazal is one of the best Resistance priests, and if your positions are identical to his, you are most assuredly Resistance, regardless of what other additional criteria you might like to see the Resistance add or subtract.
    Just my 2 cents, which all are free to disagree with, without it becoming grounds for animosity.
    I now take my leave of this excellent forum to return to the blogosphere, and wish you all the best.
    Any prayers would be much appreciated.
    Semper Idem,
    Sean Johnson
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 61
    • Reputation: +82/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #8 on: September 06, 2017, 10:00:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I don't visit often but to see sean johnson here again acting like some chief is pretty dramatic.

    I think the resistance is much more catholic than the confines sean puts on it.

    The issue of his Excellency Bp. Williamson administering the sacrament of confirmation to the Feeneyites, which is against church law, was over the top for me.

    The link you provided for fr. Bitzer sean is a copy of a spanish translation I believe sourced from NonPossumus.  The list has other priest names on it we have not heard of.

    We need more unity in the resistance than all these partialities.

    To be honest, I have hope in the other bishops. I only wish they would unite us more.




    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4426
    • Reputation: +2704/-1246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #9 on: September 06, 2017, 11:12:47 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr Bitzer's chapel is independent.  It is not sspx, nor sspv, nor feeneyite, nor resistance.  It is a continuation of the basement chapel started by Fr Wathen in the early 1970s, when he left his diocese in protest of the heresies of V2 and the novus ordo.  

    This chapel has been in existence for almost 50 years and it is NOT based on Feeneyism.  Fr Bitzer does not make feeneyism his personal crusade, nor does he impose any view on anyone, nor does he even talk about the issue...because in the vast scheme of salvation and matters of Faith, it matters little.

    +W's visit to provide confirmations was an act of charity towards those who need sacramental help in our satanic times.  Evidently, +W deems that the salvation of souls is more important than a petty theological argument, and rightly so.    

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2939
    • Reputation: +1448/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #10 on: September 06, 2017, 11:43:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hello Meg-
    To still be asking this question after my previous post implies you were not satisfied with my response.
    So I guess I would need to ask you: "What is the Resistance?"
    How would you define it?
    What are its essential criteria?
    In 2011, to be "Resistance" simply meant to be part of a group of concerned SSPXers who wanted to form a contingency plan in case +BF sold out the Society.
    By 2012, being "Resistance" meant to be opposed to the practical accord with unconverted Rome which Bishop Fellay had proposed.
    Already at that time, some were trying to add additional criteria to what they considered was necessary to qualify as "Resiatance" (e.g., You must "red light" all SSPX Masses/sacraments).
    By 2014, you were or were not "Resistance" depending on whether you supported Boston or the Bishop.
    And in 2017, the question is asked whether former SSPX priests exercising independent apostolates (per Bishop Williamson's view) are "Resistance" properly so-called at all, seeing as they show no desire to continue in a religious congregation similar to the one which they left.
    And what about oddballs like Fr. Gavin Bitzer (i.e., the independent Kentucky Feenyite whose parish is visited by +BW)?  Is he "Resistance?  The Cor Mariae forum would say "no way," but they suffer from amnesia, as they list him among Resistance priests here:http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/statistics-of-the-resistance-movement.3423/  What hypocrites for excoriating Bishop Williamson last year on his visit there, eh?
    To me, there are only two essential criterion to be qualified as "Resistance" (and all can take it or leave it; it matters very little to me):
    1) You oppose the ralliement of the SSPX;
    2) Excepting necessity, you reject receiving the sacraments which the SSPX has placed under the jurisdiction of conciliar authorities.
    Now let's cover what we know of Morgon in the last 12-14 months:
    1) They publish a study which explains why they cannot follow the SSPX into Rome, and delivered it to Bishop Fellay;
    2) Bishop de Gallareta states he no longer has any jurisdiction over them (i.e., they are no longer subject to Menzingen's control);
    3) They harbour priests who flee the SSPX because of their opposition to Menzingen's ralliement.
    If despite all this, these Friars desire to maintain as good a relationship as is possible amidst the strained circumstances, I hardly think it grounds to call into question their position.
    I do the same thing at my own SSPX chapel when the Resistance is not in town.
    Sure, it would be nice if Morgon would hop on the internet and publish a statement saying, "We have joined the Resistance!"
    But that is not the monastic way.
    Fr. Chazal's brother is a Friar there, and he told Fr. Chazal they all share exactly the same positions as we do.
    Now if you are a Pfeifferite, that is still problematic for you, since according to their criteria, Fr. Chazal himself is not Resistance.
    But for the rest of the world, Fr. Chazal is one of the best Resistance priests, and if your positions are identical to his, you are most assuredly Resistance, regardless of what other additional criteria you might like to see the Resistance add or subtract.
    Just my 2 cents, which all are free to disagree with, without it becoming grounds for animosity.
    I now take my leave of this excellent forum to return to the blogosphere, and wish you all the best.
    Any prayers would be much appreciated.
    Semper Idem,
    Sean Johnson

    It doesn't need to be so complicated. I just wanted to know if the Capuchins have said that they are now Resistance. It was just a simple question.

    Sheesh.  ???


    Offline hermit urban

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +32/-11
    • Gender: Male
    • Laudetur Iesus Christus
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #11 on: September 08, 2017, 11:29:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hi. How to confirm the words of the cappuccino brother of Father Chazal? What is the source? What is the number of the friar From where the source of the passage of the capuchins to the resistance when we see them next to the FSSPX?

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3716/-290
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #12 on: September 08, 2017, 02:31:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr Bitzer's chapel is independent.  It is not sspx, nor sspv, nor feeneyite, nor resistance.  It is a continuation of the basement chapel started by Fr Wathen in the early 1970s, when he left his diocese in protest of the heresies of V2 and the novus ordo.  

    This chapel has been in existence for almost 50 years and it is NOT based on Feeneyism.  Fr Bitzer does not make feeneyism his personal crusade, nor does he impose any view on anyone, nor does he even talk about the issue...because in the vast scheme of salvation and matters of Faith, it matters little.

    +W's visit to provide confirmations was an act of charity towards those who need sacramental help in our satanic times.  Evidently, +W deems that the salvation of souls is more important than a petty theological argument, and rightly so.    
    Just a small clarification. Father Wathen requested and received dispensation from his lawful Bishop, to withdraw himself from diocesan duties and any requirement to say the New liturgy or sacramental forms. Father was a man of the Church always in keeping with Her Law. Father Bitzer shared a long and close collaboration in tending to the needs of the faithful and in holding sound doctrine. From my knowledge Father Bitzer is not any kind of partisan zealot, he is simply a good and faithful Catholic priest.

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4765
    • Reputation: +5554/-445
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #13 on: September 08, 2017, 10:19:12 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0

  • As Sean explains, the term "Resistance" has evolved.  It is misunderstood and misused.

    The term "SSPX Resistance" is passe.  And Bp. Williamson has no license or monopoly on it.
    The resistance fight extends well beyond SSPX neo-tradism.

    The true resistance is a continuum of the Catholic counter-revolutionary movement.
    We struggle to maintain the Faith, to fight against dogmatic errors, heresies and schisms.

    The Church is now so riddled with modernism, it obviously can only be resisted by being outside the diocese and the corrupted neo-trad orders. Meaning an independent chapel venue.

    Label us "odd-balls", "schismatics", "Feeneyites", whatever.  

    The trad movement is in the catacombs, hanging-on by it's fingernails.  


    It is really that bad... whether you want to admit it or not.

    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3716/-290
    • Gender: Male
    Re: **UPDATED** Doctrinal Study of the Capuchins of Morgon (France)
    « Reply #14 on: September 08, 2017, 10:47:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right on the mark!  More tomorrow.

     

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