Author Topic: A Menzingen Confession (Read 4017 times)

Centroamerica · « **on:** March 27, 2015, 02:53:39 PM »

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2015/03/dom-tomas-de-aquino-osb-una-confesion.html

Follow the link, it is in English

ENGLISH

Fr. Thomas Aquinas, OSB.
A Menzingen Confession
Translated by Michael Fuller

The communication from Menzingen on the 19th of March, although brief, teaches us a good number of things. Among these, we find a confession here: that Bishop Williamson was expelled from the Society of St. Pius X because of his opposition to the accordist policy of Bishop Fellay.

Up until the present, Menzingen spoke about disobedience: Bishop Williamson was undisciplined, a bad subordinate that does not obey the orders received. Now, Menzingen confesses the true reason: "the violent criticisms" of Bishop Williamson regarding the relations of Menzingen with the Roman authorities. The same as Bishop Faure. This is where they fail.

The affair of the letter of the 3 bishops to Bishop Fellay and his assistants was not digested well by them. Relations with Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre had them as well, but with the hope that Rome recovered, that it would return. In fact, Archbishop Lefebvre was who directed the negotiations and he did it with invincible certitude, because his criteria was the Faith of all times. Including, that while doing this, he nearly fell into Rome's trap. "I went too far", he said.

On the contrary, with Bishop Fellay, everything happens in a completely different manner. It's not him that directs the negotiations. It is not him that has the strength to say to Rome: "It is I, the accused, who will have to judge you." No, Bishop Fellay does not present himself as a judge of the errors of Rome. He presents himself more like a guilty one "in an irregular situation" who must reintegrate himself into the fold and suffers because "his" Society does not follow suit.

Allow us to add with emphasis: Judge Rome? Isn't this the role of the superiors and not of inferiors? Of course. But the superiors have already cast their judgement. It is Quanta Cura, Pascendi, Quas Primas, etc., that condemns the liberal popes. It is Rome, Eternal Rome, who has already judged neo-modernism and neo-Protestantism. Bishop Fellay seems to have forgotten this and he makes it forgotten with his "visible Church of today." End of emphasis.

Bishop Williamson was in the way of the negotiations of Menzingen. He constituted an obstacle. We knew it well, but the General House gave another version. Now, they confess it. It's the "violent criticisms" of Bishop Williamson against their operation ѕυιcιdє that have been the cause of his expulsion. It was about time that Menzingen said it and now they finally have.

Nevertheless, Menzingen misrepresents the question in saying that these violent criticisms were about "any relations with the Roman authorities". No. This is not true. The criticisms were regarding an incorporation into Rome, that would put the Society under its modernist and liberal yoke, by which the devil tries to arrive at what Gustavo Corção called "the terminal sin": to bring down the last bastions in one last, monumental affront to God.

And to do this we could not lend our support. The devil will not achieve his goals because Our Lady is watching over: Ipsa conteret. Here is where our hope is. She will not be let down if we are faithful by the grace of God: Fidelis inveniatur.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2015, 11:24:46 PM »

I just went back and reread the March 19 statement from the SSPX. I can't believe I didn't catch that the first time around. Finally they admit the truth. Now let's see how they try to backtrack...their hypocrisy is boundless. You fence-straddlers ought to be ashamed by now.

Ekim · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2015, 06:31:10 AM »

Battle lines ate already drawn. I brought this up last Sunday at the local SSPX chapel. The reply I got to +Pozzo's statement was that it was nothing new, Rome has been offering The Society a deal since the time of ABL. What they didn't grasp, and sadly didn't even care about, was that the difference b/t ABL and +Fellay is that the Archbishop was waiting for Rome to convert to Tradition to accept the deal. +Fellay is waiting for the SSPX to convert to modernism. No one seemed to care. Some even thought it was about time.

If +Fellay signs a deal with Rome my guess is that very few will seem to care, most will embrace the change. After all, they have been conditioned to accept the NO over the last 6+ years. Just think, when was the last time you heard or read about the Society making reperation for the sins and blasphemy taking place during the Novus Ordo Missae? This was common in the 80's now you hear not a peep. Many in the pews have never heard this from an SSPX priest. My ten year old would not be aware of such sacrilege had I not taught him. Many in the pews these days like the reverence and beauty of the Mass. They don't truly grasp the core (doctrine) that it holds and protects.

Ekim · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2015, 06:40:32 AM »

+Williamson taught that the faith is lost by the 3rd generation. 1st has been given the doctrine of the Faith. They love the heart and soul of Our Lord's Church.

2nd has been robbed of doctrine, they love the smells and bells and the families tradition of "Catholic" but have no real "meat and potatoes" (doctrine) to give their kids. Their faith is superficial.

3rd have not gotten the "meat and potatoes" so they are malnourished. They have not the strength to reject the sickness of the world. Even their sentimental attachment to the smells and bells is not enough...Faith is lost.

This pattern can be seen clearly in the SSPX

JPaul · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2015, 07:59:01 AM »

The loyal SSPX faithful, (the Menzingen faction), have just about been Indultized. Which means that they are on their way to being conciliarized. Which means that they will being Judaized.

There is no Faith of Christ in a Judaized world. Ask Max Krah. He knows them well.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2015, 04:44:23 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

+Williamson taught that the faith is lost by the 3rd generation. 1st has been given the doctrine of the Faith. They love the heart and soul of Our Lord's Church.

2nd has been robbed of doctrine, they love the smells and bells and the families tradition of "Catholic" but have no real "meat and potatoes" (doctrine) to give their kids. Their faith is superficial.

3rd have not gotten the "meat and potatoes" so they are malnourished. They have not the strength to reject the sickness of the world. Even their sentimental attachment to the smells and bells is not enough...Faith is lost.

This pattern can be seen clearly in the SSPX

This is absolutely correct. I'm seeing it more and more. The only way to brake this pattern is to teach doctrine and to discuss openly with the family the problems in the Church but is not enough to explain, we must take them to the source (docuмent) to read it when they are old enough so they develop their own convictions. My husband never wanted our children to say: "my dad says...", some of them hesitated asking a question because they knew they would get an education. And they did. Now they do the same with their children.
We cannot be complacent and expect someone else to do our job. It is hard but it is even more rewarding.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #6 on:** March 29, 2015, 06:07:41 PM »

We came into the sspx in around 2001,02. The only "doctrine" I can recall fall into a range of issues which I can quickly summarize:

1)Have lots of kids. Do not practice NFP.
2) Do not watch TV.
3) Girls wear skirts and dresses well below the knees.
4) Do not attend an indult Mass.
5) Stay clean away from sedevacantism.
6) Always revere the memory of the Archbishop.
8) Always practice proper liturgy.
9) Shun the Novus Ordo.
10) Confess often.
11) Say the Rosary.

As for Biblical doctrine and theology, particularly the teachings of St. Paul, I remember very little. What exactly is this "doctrine" that we are to observe fastidiously? What is this "Faith" which is lost after the 3rd generation?

Ekim · « **Reply #7 on:** March 29, 2015, 06:51:18 PM »

I can't speak for +Williamson, but what i took away from his lesson was that exposing your kids to the things you mentioned was not enough. You have to teach them the "Why" for ALL the things you mentioned.

Why avoid the Novus Ordo. Why Communion in the hand is a sacrilege. Why the Rosary is important. Why modesty....etc.... Only by knowing why the Church teaches what it does and understand ing it's importance will Faith live on.

Colombiere · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:17:41 PM »

I looked around but haven't been able to find the docuмent from the SSPX that dismissed Bishop Williamson. I did find the public statement that announced that it had occurred. Does anyone know if Bishop Williamson ever released his dismissal paper? Not a big deal, just wondering.

Maria Elizabeth · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2015, 09:00:44 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

We came into the sspx in around 2001,02. The only "doctrine" I can recall fall into a range of issues which I can quickly summarize:

1)Have lots of kids. Do not practice NFP.
2) Do not watch TV.
3) Girls wear skirts and dresses well below the knees.
4) Do not attend an indult Mass.
5) Stay clean away from sedevacantism.
6) Always revere the memory of the Archbishop.
8) Always practice proper liturgy.
9) Shun the Novus Ordo.
10) Confess often.
11) Say the Rosary.

As for Biblical doctrine and theology, particularly the teachings of St. Paul, I remember very little. What exactly is this "doctrine" that we are to observe fastidiously? What is this "Faith" which is lost after the 3rd generation?

I came to the SSPX in 1995.

We were told to read the papal encyclicals against Modernism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, etc. (Angelus Press used to sell a package for those "new to Tradition".). Many of the sermons cautioned about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. All the sermons back then were hard-hitting "fire and brimstone" lectures.

We were also catechized heavily. We learned the Catholic rebuttals to the Protestant and other heretical and Schismatic claims. We were told to read books like "Where We Got The Bible" by Rev Henry Graham and "Radio Replies" by Frs Rumble and Carty.

We were continually asked by our confessors "What books are you reading now?" Most of the good books were published by TAN and Neumann Press.

We were told to read books like "The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber" (a docuмentary about what happened at Vatican II), "The Ottavani Intervention", and Michael Davies' trilogy "Liturgical Revolution".

Other books that were strongly encouraged were ones like:
"Mass Where Is Thy Priest. Priest Where Is Thy Mass?"
All of Archbishop Lefebvre's books
"The Mouth of the Lion" - Bishop Castro de Mayer's diocese

We were instructed to subscribe to the Angelus Press magazine which was running hard hitting articles like "Is Brain Death Really Death?" It also profiled the Filipino Bishop who converted to Tradition after he retired. (Can't remember his name right now.)

Most of the discussions after Mass were about the Catholic books we were reading and which ones we needed to read next.

Our priests held "Days of Recollection" once a month and almost everyone attended. The "Days of Recollection" were hard-hitting as well.

Our priests held Catechism lessons and most people attended. These lessons addressed the areas where the priests felt the people were weak.

We heard about St Thomas Aquinas and his teachings.

We were all fired up for God and His Church and were groomed to "Convert the World". And we had the Legion of Mary to help us organize to bring in converts and the Third Orders to help spiritually.

...................

Then our priests changed. They no longer cared for The Legion of Mary and had it disbanded. They no longer asked us what books we were reading. We were no longer catechized. The Third Orders were no longer supported. The priests steered us into sports instead of Thomas Aquinas. They no longer preached of the dangers of the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, or Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Now the neo-SSPX priests laugh at the "quaint" idea that FreeMasons are dangerous. They like Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.

It is heart-rending to see what has become of our once-wonderful SSPX priests!

Columba · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2015, 05:18:43 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

+Williamson taught that the faith is lost by the 3rd generation. 1st has been given the doctrine of the Faith. They love the heart and soul of Our Lord's Church.

2nd has been robbed of doctrine, they love the smells and bells and the families tradition of "Catholic" but have no real "meat and potatoes" (doctrine) to give their kids. Their faith is superficial.

3rd have not gotten the "meat and potatoes" so they are malnourished. They have not the strength to reject the sickness of the world. Even their sentimental attachment to the smells and bells is not enough...Faith is lost.

This pattern can be seen clearly in the SSPX

This is prophetic. Can you point toward or give suggestions to find H.E.'s original statements to this effect?

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2015, 06:16:06 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

We came into the sspx in around 2001,02. The only "doctrine" I can recall fall into a range of issues which I can quickly summarize:

1)Have lots of kids. Do not practice NFP.
2) Do not watch TV.
3) Girls wear skirts and dresses well below the knees.
4) Do not attend an indult Mass.
5) Stay clean away from sedevacantism.
6) Always revere the memory of the Archbishop.
8) Always practice proper liturgy.
9) Shun the Novus Ordo.
10) Confess often.
11) Say the Rosary.

As for Biblical doctrine and theology, particularly the teachings of St. Paul, I remember very little. What exactly is this "doctrine" that we are to observe fastidiously? What is this "Faith" which is lost after the 3rd generation?

What are you suggesting?

Are you making fun of integral Catholicism, or what? Are you suggesting the SSPX was a superficial cult back in 2001? If you are, you're wrong.

You seem to be mocking those rules. I see no problem with those rules at all. I think they're a good starting point for leading a truly Catholic life.

The SSPX of the time, including most (virtually all?) of its priests would have been happy to give you books, sermons, etc. to improve your understanding of Catholic doctrine -- the WHY of those moral principles and conclusions you listed (above).

There have always been less-than-well informed as well as worldly Catholics in the SSPX chapels' pews. However, whose fault was that? People always have free will. Remember, the alternative is to become cult-like and require signed contracts, signing statements, written abjurations, and all that nonsense. Because the SSPX is Catholic, they have to allow any Catholics to attend if they feel the "necessity" to do so.

The SSPX is part of the Catholic Church. The Church has always been the net that was filled with good and bad fishes. Read the parable of the Wheat and the tares (weeds).

The SSPX used to be very good about preaching INTEGRAL (whole) Catholicism, which is opposed to Sunday Catholicism or schizoid Catholicism.

If your non-Catholic neighbors can't tell there's "something different about" you and your family, then you're doing something wrong! You should be dressing differently, acting differently, recreating differently, and praying differently.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2015, 07:04:28 PM »

Looks like the third generation has arrived sooner than expected.

Ekim · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2015, 07:07:20 PM »

Sorry Columba I do not know exactly where he said it. It was more likely than not in one of the Letters from the Seminary. It could have even been back in the Ridgefield days. He also mentioned part of the attachment to Catholicism that the second generation had was due to the example they saw from their parents. Their parents had a true dependence on Divine Providence because they lived through violent wars and often persecution. They clung to Our Lord and lady for their very survival. The second generation had some of that intensity rub off on them. They had a love for Our Lord and Lady as a consequence of the passion that their parents had. They loved the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart simply because their parents did. They hung the pictures on the wall because they use to belong to mom and dad. However, they could never pass that passion on to their kids, 3rd generation, because it did not exist in them.

This pattern seems to ring true with all fortunes. Studies show that by the third generation 60% of family fortunes are squandered by those who inherit them.

Everything Matthew relayed rings true at the three SSPX Chapel's I've belonged to. The passion has died. No more Holy Hours of Reperation for blasphemy and sacrilege committed in NO churches. No more Rosary Vigils for the conversion of the local Bishop, No more Angelus articles on the number of host particles that have fallen to the floor, no more of any militancy what so ever. Fr. Novak use to teach that all boys need something to fight for. They need a cause to defend. The SSPX no longer gives young men, or any men for that matter, a Battle Cry!

hollingsworth · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2015, 07:07:33 PM »

Matt:

Quote

Are you making fun of integral Catholicism, or what?

Well, not intentionally. Maybe I was a bit careless and irresponsible for jotting down those points in my last post. Certainly, for example, I don't want folks to think that I dismiss The Rosary as an essential part of integral Catholicism. I don't. And maybe we heard more homilies on the Rosary and its importance than I can presently remember. However, if we did, then the message didn't really get through to many. Because out of a congregation of around 1500 members, only 15 or less would normally show up for the late afternoon Rosary on a daily basis. Not infrequently, there was no priest to lead it, and one of us layfolk would have to do it.
I would like for you or someone, though, to clarify what essential Catholic "doctrine" is in a nutshell . There is a 'resistance' priest or two out there who occasionally accuses other priests of not having correct "doctrine," or, at the very least, imperfect "doctrine." I would like to know what correct Catholic "doctrine" is so that I can carefully avoid those priests who don't have it. Thank you.