The first day of the conference attracted 60/70 participants who are committed to rejecting V2 and the Novus Ordo to the point of turning their backs on Bp. Fellay and his liberal-leaning Society. Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko successfully held the avid attention of the faithful with more to come tomorrow plus Fr. Kramer.
After Mass, speakers covered the wild media campaign against true Catholics, the rapid progress made during the year with the help of some forty priests, the hunger for apostolates around the world, the stagnation wrought by Menzingen and the low morale of its priests. The consensus was things there would not change unless Bp. Felay resigned and recanted his doctrinal adventurism. The meeting felt like revisiting the past when Abp. Lefebvre started from humble beginnings to combat the apostasy then in the making. The war goes on.
Quote from: WessexThe first day of the conference attracted 60/70 participants who are committed to rejecting V2 and the Novus Ordo to the point of turning their backs on Bp. Fellay and his liberal-leaning Society. Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko successfully held the avid attention of the faithful with more to come tomorrow plus Fr. Kramer.
After Mass, speakers covered the wild media campaign against true Catholics, the rapid progress made during the year with the help of some forty priests, the hunger for apostolates around the world, the stagnation wrought by Menzingen and the low morale of its priests. The consensus was things there would not change unless Bp. Felay resigned and recanted his doctrinal adventurism. The meeting felt like revisiting the past when Abp. Lefebvre started from humble beginnings to combat the apostasy then in the making. The war goes on.
This is great news, Wessex - I'm so glad you could attend. Your summaries
will no doubt be well worth reading.
In case you get the chance, maybe you can bring this other thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Hewko-26-Apr-13-OL-of-Good-Counsel-AFD-or-Martyrdom) to the
attention of those who are still there tomorrow?
(If you're too late right now - but maybe there are still
some discussions going on at 8:00 pm in London?????)
Fr. Hewko might be willing to field a few questions on this, above, since it was
his own sermon of April 26th, Feast Day of Our Lady of Good Counsel, where
he admonished the Faithful to refuse signing the AFD even if it means
martyrdom.
I'd like to know what the other attendees of this great conference have to say
about that admonition, and what Frs. Hewko and Pfeiffer have to say in
response to them. It could be a very interesting Q&A!
Dumb question here...what is AFD?
(http://1catholicsalmon.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/statue_our_lady.jpg)
Prayer to Our Lady Of Walsingham
O Mary, recall the solemn moment when Jesus, your divine Son, dying on the cross confided us to your maternal care.
You are our Mother; we desire ever to remain your devout children. Let us therefore feel the effects of your powerful intercession with Jesus Christ.
Make your name again glorious in this place, once renowned throughout our land by your visits, favours and many miracles.
Pray, O Holy Mother of God, for the conversion of England, restoration of the sick, consolation for the afflicted, repentance of sinners, peace to the departed.
O Blessed Mary, Mother of God, Our Lady of Walsingham intercede for us.
Amen.
I spoke to Fr. Hewko at length; he showed interest in the history of the Society in England. He is tall ....and I am 6'! Perhaps the Recusant if it reads this can raise your query.
Are you sure you don't mix Fr Kramer with Fr Gruner who is organizing the conference ? i saw no mention of Fr Kramer on Gloria tv...
My apologies for missing the second day of events. I would of had to leave early anyways.I will post my thoughts on the conference later. Many thanks to those, who organised it and those who attended.
Apologies lack of updates and for delay in uploading videos. Our video man won't arrive home til tonight, hopefully he can start uploading to YouTube ASAP from then on...
Sunday went v. well. Around 50ppl attended, although some of them were different people from those who attended on Saturday.
Missa Cantata was followed by the renewal of the Consecration of the SSPX to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, first done by Abp.Lefebvre in 1984, and which Bishop Fellay will no longer renew.
After lunch, some further messsages of support sent to the organisers were read out. One from the Carmelites of Brilon Wald promising their prayers for the success of the conference and for the Resistance in our country. Another from Fr. Patrick Girouard, in which he announced that he had now set up a Resistance priory and chapel in Canada.
Fr. Kramer gave an excellent talk regarding Fatima and the mystery of iniquity, and ended by comprehensively showing the folly and error of claiming that the New Mass was "legitimately promulgated".
Fr. Pfeiffer raised and then answered many common objections to the Resistance put forward by Menzingen's apparatchiks. (Fr. complained about the lack of hecklers and said that he had to perform that role himself!)
An open Q&A session concluded the proceedings.
Everyone present was of one mind regarding the current crisis in the SSPX, and my own impression is that everyone spoken to seemed to say they could no longer in conscience attend the SSPX, things being as they are. The practical result is that a resistance Mass centre in London is now a permanent fixture. Expect further announcements.
Heartfelt thanks go to all those who kept us in their prayers.
Apologies lack of updates and for delay in uploading videos. Our video man won't arrive home til tonight, hopefully he can start uploading to YouTube ASAP from then on...
Sunday went v. well. Around 50ppl attended, although some of them were different people from those who attended on Saturday.
Missa Cantata was followed by the renewal of the Consecration of the SSPX to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, first done by Abp.Lefebvre in 1984, and which Bishop Fellay will no longer renew.
After lunch, some further messages of support sent to the organisers were read out. One from the Carmelites of Brilon Wald promising their prayers for the success of the conference and for the Resistance in our country. Another from Fr. Patrick Girouard, in which he announced that he had now set up a Resistance priory and chapel in Canada.
Fr. Kramer gave an excellent talk regarding Fatima and the mystery of iniquity, and ended by comprehensively showing the folly and error of claiming that the New Mass was "legitimately promulgated".
Fr. Pfeiffer raised and then answered many common objections to the Resistance put forward by Menzingen's apparatchiks. (Fr. complained about the lack of hecklers and said that he had to perform that role himself!)
An open Q&A session concluded the proceedings.
Everyone present was of one mind regarding the current crisis in the SSPX, and my own impression is that everyone spoken to seemed to say they could no longer in conscience attend the SSPX, things being as they are. The practical result is that a resistance Mass centre in London is now a permanent fixture. Expect further announcements.
Heartfelt thanks go to all those who kept us in their prayers.
1531, many thanks.
We thought of selling recordings, but the important thing is not to make money but to get the message out. So, just like with The Recusant newsletter, we've decided to make it all available to everyone for free, but we ask for donations - whatever you feel you would have been prepared or able to pay if we had been selling them. Does that make sense?
The videos will hopefully be on YouTube soon, we can also send CDs of the audio to you by post, if that's more convenient, or if there's anyone who doesn't have internet, etc (just let us know the address).
Interestingly, at the same time fr pfluger was in dublin, presumebly on a charm offensive :surprised: so soon after the visit of BF, the surprise being, that menz have ignored Ireland for the last ten years or so,
One more interesting little thing to note: total number of people who made the effort and came to the Crisis in the SSPX Conference at some point during the weekend must be a good 100 or so. On Saturday our numbers reached 70ish.
By comparison:
At Burghclere, we are reliably informed that around 80 people sat through Bishop Fellay's talk (which lasted 3hours!). And that included people who agree with us and who don't agree with him at all. And that, despite the fact that he was speaking in the numerically biggest and physically largest parish in the district, despite the fact that our District Superior has been urging everyone to attend, in sermons and on the District newsletter for weeks; and despite the fact that Bishop Fellay had an almost-captive audience due to confirmations having taken place earlier on the same day.
Yes, the school is a captive audience; it is so much harder for families to disengage and change their routine. But glad the attendance at the Crisis conference moved into three figures ..... and this is at the very beginning of a new initiative! With a central location in London and a permanent priest, I am sure there would be strong growth.
A criticism I have is the criticism shown towards Bishop Williamson and Fr Morgan. I personally believe both have not betrayed the Archbishop or Tradition. I don't believe for a minute both will sell out and betray Tradition.
Quote from: John GraceA criticism I have is the criticism shown towards Bishop Williamson and Fr Morgan. I personally believe both have not betrayed the Archbishop or Tradition. I don't believe for a minute both will sell out and betray Tradition.
Do you believe for a minute that one of the two might sell out?
One more interesting little thing to note: total number of people who made the effort and came to the Crisis in the SSPX Conference at some point during the weekend must be a good 100 or so. On Saturday our numbers reached 70ish.
By comparison:
At Burghclere, we are reliably informed that around 80 people sat through Bishop Fellay's talk (which lasted 3hours!). And that included people who agree with us and who don't agree with him at all. And that, despite the fact that he was speaking in the numerically biggest and physically largest parish in the district, despite the fact that our District Superior has been urging everyone to attend, in sermons and on the District newsletter for weeks; and despite the fact that Bishop Fellay had an almost-captive audience due to confirmations having taken place earlier on the same day.
.Quote from: TheRecusantOne more interesting little thing to note: total number of people who made the effort and came to the Crisis in the SSPX Conference at some point during the weekend must be a good 100 or so. On Saturday our numbers reached 70ish.
By comparison:
At Burghclere, we are reliably informed that around 80 people sat through Bishop Fellay's talk (which lasted 3hours!). And that included people who agree with us and who don't agree with him at all. And that, despite the fact that he was speaking in the numerically biggest and physically largest parish in the district, despite the fact that our District Superior has been urging everyone to attend, in sermons and on the District newsletter for weeks; and despite the fact that Bishop Fellay had an almost-captive audience due to confirmations having taken place earlier on the same day.Quote from: WessexYes, the school is a captive audience; it is so much harder for families to disengage and change their routine. But glad the attendance at the Crisis conference moved into three figures ..... and this is at the very beginning of a new initiative! With a central location in London and a permanent priest, I am sure there would be strong growth.
All good news today. Alleluia! (Good thing it isn't Lent! HAHAHA)
The people at Burghclere should all be reminded that the next time
they have to sit through a 3-hour soliloquy of B. Fellay, they ought
to bring an issue of The Recusant to read, because in that time
they'd make it all the way through even if they only read while
he's saying "Ahh... uhm, and,,,,,,,,, uh, (and dramatic pauses),
for that accounts for a large portion of the time he spends.
-- And they would make far better use of their time.
.........Can you imagine +F looking out over a crowd speckled
with open issues of The Recusant in plain sight? We really need
a cartoonist...................
A criticism I have is the criticism shown towards Bishop Williamson and Fr Morgan.I personally believe both have not betrayed the Archbishop or Tradition.I don't believe for a minute both will sell out and betray Tradition.
Quote from: John GraceA criticism I have is the criticism shown towards Bishop Williamson and Fr Morgan. I personally believe both have not betrayed the Archbishop or Tradition. I don't believe for a minute both will sell out and betray Tradition.
Do you believe for a minute that one of the two might sell out?
Quote from: John GraceA criticism I have is the criticism shown towards Bishop Williamson and Fr Morgan.I personally believe both have not betrayed the Archbishop or Tradition.I don't believe for a minute both will sell out and betray Tradition.
I agree Bishop WIlliamson will never betray the Archbishop, but Fr Morgan already has.
He signed the 2012 General Chapter Declaration which explicitly allows for a merely practical accord, while Archbishop Lefebvre was quite clear that there be no deal until the doctrinal issues are resolved first.
Case closed.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: John GraceA criticism I have is the criticism shown towards Bishop Williamson and Fr Morgan. I personally believe both have not betrayed the Archbishop or Tradition. I don't believe for a minute both will sell out and betray Tradition.
Do you believe for a minute that one of the two might sell out?
One of the two already did, as the previous post illustrates.
Quote from: SeanJohnsonQuote from: John GraceA criticism I have is the criticism shown towards Bishop Williamson and Fr Morgan.I personally believe both have not betrayed the Archbishop or Tradition.I don't believe for a minute both will sell out and betray Tradition.
I agree Bishop WIlliamson will never betray the Archbishop, but Fr Morgan already has.
He signed the 2012 General Chapter Declaration which explicitly allows for a merely practical accord, while Archbishop Lefebvre was quite clear that there be no deal until the doctrinal issues are resolved first.
Case closed.
Father Morgon has certainly betrayed the fight for the Faith, and Bishop Williamson certainly hasn't. Nor does he show any signs of doing so.
But let's remember that nobody's safe until they're dead.
I find that the hardest thing to remember in the big mes that we're in is that we're not following any particular priest, bishop, or archbishop for the sake of that priest, bishop, or archbishop. The reason we are following them is for the sake of our Lord. If Bishop Williamson, or any other member of the Resistance, ever goes Liberal one day - which God forbid and which I don't think is happening right now - then we would have to resist that Resistance leader in the same way that we are right now resisting Bishop Fellay and Pope Francis!
Anyway, to sum up my two cents...Bishop Williamson is right, but he is not infallible.
In "The Ballad of the White Horse" Chesterton teaches that The Blessed Virgin Mary will restore England to its former glory and save the nation from pagan worship.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: John GraceA criticism I have is the criticism shown towards Bishop Williamson and Fr Morgan. I personally believe both have not betrayed the Archbishop or Tradition. I don't believe for a minute both will sell out and betray Tradition.
Do you believe for a minute that one of the two might sell out?
No, though certainly agree the faithful must ask them questions. It must be remembered Bishop Fellay and others are responsible for the crisis in the SSPX.
People must act according to their conscience but I do not favour criticism of Bishop Williamson.
I haven't given up on Fr Morgan.
People were able to air their questions concerning the crisis in SSPX.
Prayer is certainly encouraged for all during this crisis and the SSPX sliding.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: John GraceA criticism I have is the criticism shown towards Bishop Williamson and Fr Morgan. I personally believe both have not betrayed the Archbishop or Tradition. I don't believe for a minute both will sell out and betray Tradition.
Do you believe for a minute that one of the two might sell out?
I agree Bishop WIlliamson will never betray the Archbishop, but Fr Morgan already has.
He signed the 2012 General Chapter Declaration which explicitly allows for a merely practical accord, while Archbishop Lefebvre was quite clear that there be no deal until the doctrinal issues are resolved first.
Case closed.
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Do you believe for a minute that one of the two might sell out?
One of the two already did, as the previous post illustrates.
Quote from: ZeitunIn "The Ballad of the White Horse" Chesterton teaches that The Blessed Virgin Mary will restore England to its former glory and save the nation from pagan worship.
Indeed. Fr Hewko in particular spoke well of the Irish and English Saints and Martyrs.
The Mass he offered was the same Mass that they were martyred for. He mentioned to me that he and Fr Pfeiffer had visited the grave of Fr Denis Fahey in Dublin and the grave of St. Patrick.
Fr Hewko was saddened that very few people visit the grave of St Patrick.
Quote from: TheRecusantOne more interesting little thing to note: total number of people who made the effort and came to the Crisis in the SSPX Conference at some point during the weekend must be a good 100 or so. On Saturday our numbers reached 70ish.
By comparison:
At Burghclere, we are reliably informed that around 80 people sat through Bishop Fellay's talk (which lasted 3hours!). And that included people who agree with us and who don't agree with him at all. And that, despite the fact that he was speaking in the numerically biggest and physically largest parish in the district, despite the fact that our District Superior has been urging everyone to attend, in sermons and on the District newsletter for weeks; and despite the fact that Bishop Fellay had an almost-captive audience due to confirmations having taken place earlier on the same day.
This is what a poster named Richard said on IA, the emphasis is mine. His figures are incorrect it seems:
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?s=5c7576d5f9b70139d8e01281e309bb7a&showtopic=12473
"......QUOTE (Wessex @ Jun 1 2013, 06:50 PM)
The first day of the conference attracted 60/70 participants who are committed to rejecting V2 and the Novus Ordo to the point of turning their backs on Bp. Fellay and his liberal-leaning Society. Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko successfully held the avid attention of the faithful with more to come tomorrow plus Fr. Kramer.
After Mass, speakers covered the wild media campaign against true Catholics, the rapid progress made during the year with the help of some forty priests, the hunger for apostolates around the world, the stagnation wrought by Menzingen and the low morale of its priests. The consensus was things there would not change unless Bp. Felay resigned and recanted his doctrinal adventurism. The meeting felt like revisiting the past when Abp. Lefebvre started from humble beginnings to combat the apostosay then in the making. The war goes on.
60/70 that's it??? After all the hype, what a flop!!!
And how many were actually SSPX? You for one, Wessex, are not!!!
Bp. Fellay had 4 times that number at his conference with everyone at the end giving him a loud round of applause and a large number going up to and personally thanking him.
what a joke....."
Greetings to all here, this is my first post as i joined only at the weekend.
I attended the London Conference on saturday and i was staggered by the number of people who were there and my first impression was that if they withdraw from the mainstream SSPX Father Morgan would have a big problem on his hands. Fellay and Menzingen are not to be trusted and we cannot be sure about which way Father Morgan will go, but there is everything to be gained from the faithful exerting leverage over those considering selling out the SSPX to the Vatican II counter church by making it clear that they will not be fooled or cajoled or bullied or sneakily brought into any deals made in private and without consultation. It is excellent that some of the Faithful are sending a strong signal to the District SSPX and Menzingen that they are not the only show in town and that enough is enough and now is the time for the District priests and all those opposed to fellay's dictatorship to stand up and be counted. The previous strategy of trying to resist Fellay from within has failed and in my opinion the SSPX is now bled of its apostolic zeal and strong defence of Tradition and is hopelessly compromised in its dealings with the heretics in Rome. The sooner there is a London mission established the better, and i hope that it will be tolerant of differences of opinion relating to the crisis in the Church while united in its defence of doctrine and the traditional Sacraments and fearlessly outspoken against the heretics in the hierarchy.
Quote from: WessexThe first day of the conference attracted 60/70 participants who are committed to rejecting V2 and the Novus Ordo to the point of turning their backs on Bp. Fellay and his liberal-leaning Society. Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko successfully held the avid attention of the faithful with more to come tomorrow plus Fr. Kramer.
After Mass, speakers covered the wild media campaign against true Catholics, the rapid progress made during the year with the help of some forty priests, the hunger for apostolates around the world, the stagnation wrought by Menzingen and the low morale of its priests. The consensus was things there would not change unless Bp. Felay resigned and recanted his doctrinal adventurism. The meeting felt like revisiting the past when Abp. Lefebvre started from humble beginnings to combat the apostasy then in the making. The war goes on.
This is great news, Wessex - I'm so glad you could attend. Your summaries
will no doubt be well worth reading.
In case you get the chance, maybe you can bring this other thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Hewko-26-Apr-13-OL-of-Good-Counsel-AFD-or-Martyrdom) to the
attention of those who are still there tomorrow?
(If you're too late right now - but maybe there are still
some discussions going on at 8:00 pm in London?????)
Fr. Hewko might be willing to field a few questions on this, above, since it was
his own sermon of April 26th, Feast Day of Our Lady of Good Counsel, where
he admonished the Faithful to refuse signing the AFD even if it means
martyrdom.
I'd like to know what the other attendees of this great conference have to say
about that admonition, and what Frs. Hewko and Pfeiffer have to say in
response to them. It could be a very interesting Q&A!
My concern is that those who we might consider as friendly to the Resistance but who advise to stay and fight inside the SSPX will actually only succeed in muting opposition to Fellay and preventing the one most effective means of opposing the sellout.
Thank you Neil Obstat for your very kind comments and welcoming me to this site.
I am on the fringes of involvement in the SSPX, being limited to attending their Mass centres, and in recent years having had the pleasure of meeting Father Morgan and one or two other of the District Priests. A long time ago I was more involved in the SSPX but I came to notice some of the dangerous ambiguities and inconsistencies of its positions which I thought left the Society wide open to selling out at some stage. That and the dictatorial and authoritarian manner of the conduct of some of its leaders made me feel it was best to step back. I also loathe any heavy handed treatment of Faithful whereby compliance is obtained through threat of withholding the Sacraments instituted by Christ. I feel that the time has come for the Faithful in the SSPX who have exhausted themselves trying to fight against Fellay's mealy mouthed and duplicitous conduct to start organising themselves and establish an alternative Mission in the UK more faithful to Archbishop Lefevbre's unambiguous opposition to Vatican II and all the evil that flows from it. My worry is that the faithful can wait and wait for the District Priests to break ranks and make a stand for Tradition against Fellay's sell out but it will never happen and before long the best opportunity to Resist has passed and the Society is absorbed bit by bit into the Novus Ordo. My concern is that those who we might consider as friendly to the Resistance but who advise to stay and fight inside the SSPX will actually only succeed in muting opposition to Fellay and preventing the one most effective means of opposing the sellout. By separating from the Society and withdrawing financial and all support, the Faithful will both be building for the future of Tradition in the UK and also sending a strong message to the Society to get rid of Fellay or your threats and sellout to the Novus Ordo will be irrelevant because for us it is business as usual and you go your own way. The worst fate of all is to wake up one day and realise that you have been hoodwinked into Newchurch and regret the wasted opportunities to organise and resist.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: WessexThe first day of the conference attracted 60/70 participants who are committed to rejecting V2 and the Novus Ordo to the point of turning their backs on Bp. Fellay and his liberal-leaning Society. Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko successfully held the avid attention of the faithful with more to come tomorrow plus Fr. Kramer.
After Mass, speakers covered the wild media campaign against true Catholics, the rapid progress made during the year with the help of some forty priests, the hunger for apostolates around the world, the stagnation wrought by Menzingen and the low morale of its priests. The consensus was things there would not change unless Bp. Felay resigned and recanted his doctrinal adventurism. The meeting felt like revisiting the past when Abp. Lefebvre started from humble beginnings to combat the apostasy then in the making. The war goes on.
This is great news, Wessex - I'm so glad you could attend. Your summaries
will no doubt be well worth reading.
In case you get the chance, maybe you can bring this other thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Hewko-26-Apr-13-OL-of-Good-Counsel-AFD-or-Martyrdom) to the
attention of those who are still there tomorrow?
(If you're too late right now - but maybe there are still
some discussions going on at 8:00 pm in London?????)
Fr. Hewko might be willing to field a few questions on this, above, since it was
his own sermon of April 26th, Feast Day of Our Lady of Good Counsel, where
he admonished the Faithful to refuse signing the AFD even if it means
martyrdom.
I'd like to know what the other attendees of this great conference have to say
about that admonition, and what Frs. Hewko and Pfeiffer have to say in
response to them. It could be a very interesting Q&A!
I am just catching up with this thread NO. First, thank you for writing up Father Hewko's talk on the other thread you posted.
Are you saying the 'faithful' (laity) are being asked to sign this docuмent?
I don't know what ADF stands for. ----[it's AFD]
For the size and wealth of London, the SSPX mission here is quite small. Having to compete with other expressions of 'tradition' in grander buildings would mean putting pressure on it to be distinctive in other ways. But I think resources were directed to places where there were enough folk to maintain viable chapels. There was not going to be another S. Nicolas du Chardonnet to inspire and draw a wider audience.
The magical formula will be location and a couple of dynamic priests ..... and the rest will follow. Fr. Morgan will not admit his undertaking is a sinking ship if he is now going along with the new direction and is happy being just another purveyor of sterile antiquity. His ship will join all the others in life's playground. But nature and divine providence will abhor the vacuum he leaves behind.
Fr Morgan, appears to be a changed man, no longer comfortable in his own skin, but then, we have all been altered by the uncomfortable atmosphere in the sspx chapels, in recent years.....
By remaining silent both priests and laity have only themselves to blame for adding to the crisis and unease.
There is now a public acknowledgement of a grave crisis in the SSPX and it is sinking.
One way or the other the priests in Ireland and every District should have been more vocal.
I accept many priests are worried of finding themselves homeless but staying quiet has created an impression, [that] they are for an agreement.
I am sick of them messing the laity about.
It was said about 130 people attend Society chapels in London and with 70 people or so at the 1st day of the conference and 50 at the second, Fr Morgan has problems at his door.
If Fr. Morgan or any of the priests of the Districts deny people the sacraments, it will be a turning point for me and at that point, I would say to them they have betrayed the Archbishop.
I am still giving Fr. Morgan and others the benefit of the doubt.
I was disgusted to learn at the conference that children are being threatened with expulsion from Society schools because the families support the resistance.
It would be remarkable if they do deny sacraments and yet the Superior General commits blasphemy against Our Lady. A terrible reality that Bishop Fellay has done this. Imagine using Our Lady to deceive priests and faithful.
I would rejoice if denied the sacraments by a SSPX priest. It would show how bad they are.
Thank you very much for your explanation N.O. I truly appreciate it. I have noticed that you take a lot of trouble to answer questions so that simple folk like yours truly can understand. Most of my acquaintances are too afraid to delve into the 'other side' of what is happening. I cannot blame them because I am becoming aware that we have been spoon-fed never having to actually fight to keep the faith....actually enter into the front-lines and fight for the Church herself.
Most of us just want to keep receiving the Sacraments, but it all began to fall apart for me when Bishop Williamson was expelled and priests were 'sacked'. (How do you expel a bishop or sack a priest?)
I understood that ++ABL only intended the SSPX to last a short time expecting that Rome would gradually wake up and the Society's reason-for-being would no longer exist - its presence forgotten having served its purpose. But it seems that when the SSPX lost the will to hold Rome to account its time was still up, but it began to lose its special vocation, so to speak.
It doesn't make sense to have preambles/contracts/whatevers because they are only necessary when there is no trust. They are used to force this or that action legally. As a layperson it seems to me that there should be no such thing as a docuмent where the SG would be given charge over his flock inside the church.
He would have more authority than the Pope wouldn't he? He would be able to refuse the Pope if his flock were 'endangered' by magisterial instructions wouldn't he?
Just as ABL refused to recognise his expulsion so it seems does Bishop Williamson refuse to recognise his so-called 'sacking' (and the priests also) so, however Bishop Fellay calls it...the reality is, like conciliar Rome, he is the one who has left the flock....abdicated, like Pope BXVI - but he still sits on the 'throne' like the present Pope. So, in essence, the SSPX still exists under the leadership of the loyal bishop and his priests just as the true Church continued to exist when ABL kept the faith. Only this time there is no visible structure as was the case when ++ABL was alive. Is that why there is this debate going on here regarding the terribible responsibility on +BW's shoulders?
Fr. Morgan will not admit his undertaking is a sinking ship if he is now going along with the new direction and is happy being just another purveyor of sterile antiquity. His ship will join all the others in life's playground. But nature and divine providence will abhor the vacuum he leaves behind.
Please carry on!
. It was 'heavy' enough when shared by 4, but now it seems that one
man alone might be carrying it all
Quote from: PatrickGPlease carry on!
DITTO!
Quote from: donkathQuote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: WessexThe first day of the conference attracted 60/70 participants who are committed to rejecting V2 and the Novus Ordo to the point of turning their backs on Bp. Fellay and his liberal-leaning Society. Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko successfully held the avid attention of the faithful with more to come tomorrow plus Fr. Kramer.
After Mass, speakers covered the wild media campaign against true Catholics, the rapid progress made during the year with the help of some forty priests, the hunger for apostolates around the world, the stagnation wrought by Menzingen and the low morale of its priests. The consensus was things there would not change unless Bp. Felay resigned and recanted his doctrinal adventurism. The meeting felt like revisiting the past when Abp. Lefebvre started from humble beginnings to combat the apostasy then in the making. The war goes on.
This is great news, Wessex - I'm so glad you could attend.
Your summaries will no doubt be well worth reading.
In case you get the chance, maybe you can bring
this other thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Hewko-26-Apr-13-OL-of-Good-Counsel-AFD-or-Martyrdom) to the attention of those
who are still there tomorrow?
(If you're too late right now - but maybe there are still
some discussions going on at 8:00 pm in London?????)
Fr. Hewko might be willing to field a few questions on this,
above, since it was his own sermon of April 26th, Feast
Day of Our Lady of Good Counsel, where he admonished
the Faithful to refuse signing the AFD even if it means
martyrdom.
I'd like to know what the other attendees of this great
conference have to say about that admonition, and what
Frs. Hewko and Pfeiffer have to say in response to them.
It could be a very interesting Q&A!
I am just catching up with this thread NO. First, thank you
for writing up Father Hewko's talk on the other thread you
posted.
Are you saying the 'faithful' (laity) are being asked to
sign this docuмent?
I don't know what ADF stands for. ----[it's AFD]
You're welcome, donkath.
AFAIK* there have been no requests yet for the laity to sign it. You should
listen to Fr. Hewko's sermon HERE (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Hewko-26-Apr-13-OL-of-Good-Counsel-AFD-or-Martyrdom).
In that April 26th sermon on Our Lady of Good Counsel (Italy),
he uses the AFD (April Fifteenth Declaration) of +Fellay (a.k.a.
doctrinal preamble/ Doctrinal Declaration, etc.) to exemplify the
kinds of things that martyrs in the past refused to agree to, and
were then killed because of their refusal. He says that IF you
were required to sign the AFD, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, which is HERE (http://www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012),
that you should refuse to sign it, even if it means death.
He gives examples. He said that if HE were required to sign it
and IF HE DID sign it he could go to hell for that, because he
knows how bad it is. And +Fellay should know at least as much
about the AFD as Fr. Hewko knows about it, wouldn't you think?
Furthermore, if and when there is a 'deal' struck with modernist
Rome, the priests of the SSPX would be required to sign some
kind of pledge or promise or contract or testament in order to
remain a member of the SSPX, and, if any of the events of the
past 4 years are an indication (and they ARE), then any priest
or bishop of the SSPX who refuses to sign the thing they come
up with will be expelled from the Society, and of that you can
be sure.
If this happens after the Chastisement is in full swing, you can
be reasonably sure that it would mean sign it or DIE. This is why
Fr. Hewko is saying what he is saying in this sermon: to prepare
us for what is coming.
*As Far As I Know
Bishop Williamson's Open Letter to Bishop Fellay on the Expulsion:
OPEN LETTER TO BISHOP FELLAY
ON AN “EXCLUSION”
London, 19 October, 2012
Your Excellency,
Thank you for your letter of October 4 in which, on behalf of the General Council and General Chapter, you let me know of your “recognisance”, “declaration” and “decision” that I no longer belong to the Society of St Pius X. The reasons given for your decision to exclude your servant are, you tell me, the following: he has continued to publish the “Eleison Comments”; he has attacked the authorities of the Society; he has exercised an independent apostolate; he has given support to rebellious colleagues; he has been formally, obstinately and pertinaciously disobedient; he has separated himself from the Society; he no longer submits to any authority.
May not all these reasons be summed up in disobedience? No doubt in the course of the last 12 years your servant has said and done things which before God were inappropriate and excessive, but I think it would be enough to point them out one by one for him to make the apology called for in all truth and justice. But we are no doubt agreed that the essential problem is not to be found in these details, that it can be summed up in one word: disobedience.
Then let us at once point out how many more or less disagreeable orders of the Superior General have been unfailingly obeyed by your servant. In 2003 he left behind an important and fruitful apostolate in the United States to go to Argentina. In 2009 he left his post as Seminary Rector and left behind Argentina to moulder in a London attic for three and a half years, with no episcopal functions because they were denied him. All that was left to him by way of ministry was virtually the weekly “Eleison Comments”, the refusal to interrupt which constitutes the large part of the “disobedience” of which he stands accused. And ever since 2009 it has been open season for the Society Superiors to discredit and insult him to their hearts’ content, and Society members all over the world have been encouraged by their example to do the same if they wished. Your servant hardly reacted, preferring silence to scandalous confrontations. One might go so far as to say that he obstinately refused to disobey. But let that go, because that is not the real problem.
Then where is the real problem to be found? By way of reply let the accused be allowed to give a rapid overview of the history of the Society from which he is supposedly separating himself. For indeed the central problem goes a long way back.
Starting with the French Revolution towards the end of the 18th century, in many a formerly Christian State a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr began to establish itself, thought up by the Church’s enemies to chase God out of his own creation. To begin with, the old order in which throne upheld altar was replaced by the separation of Church and State. As a result, society was structured in a radically different way, creating serious difficulties for the Church, because the State, being henceforth implicitly godless, was bound in the end to fight the religion of God with all its might. Sure enough, the Freemasons set about replacing the true worship of God with the worship of liberty, a worship of which the neutral State in matters of religion is merely an instrument. Thus began in modern times a relentless war between the religion of God, defended by the Catholic Church, and the religion of man, liberated from God, and liberal. The two religions are as irreconcilable as God and the Devil. A choice has to be made between Catholicism and liberalism.
But man wants to have his cake and eat it. He does not want to have to choose. He wants it both ways. So in the wake of the French Revolution Félicité de Lamennais invented liberal Catholicism, and from that moment on, the reconciling of things irreconcilable became common currency within the Church. For 120 years God in his mercy gave to his Church a series of Popes, from Gregory XVI to Pius XII, who for the most part saw clear and held firm, but an ever growing number of layfolk were inclining towards independence from God and towards the material pleasures which liberal Catholicism makes much more accessible. The corruption spread until it infected bishops and priests, at which point God finally allowed them to choose the kind of Popes they preferred, namely Popes who would pretend to be Catholic but would in fact be liberals, whose talk might be right-wing but whose action is left-wing, who are characterized by their contradictions, ambiguity, Hegelian dialectic, in brief, by their lies. We are into the Newchurch of Vatican II.
It was bound to be. Only a dreamer can reconcile things in reality irreconcilable. Yet God, as St Augustine says, does not abandon souls that do not first want to abandon him, and so he comes to the aid of the small remnant of souls that is unwilling to join in the soft apostasy of Vatican II. He raises an Archbishop to resist the betrayal of the Conciliar churchmen. Respecting reality, with no desire to reconcile things irreconcilable, refusing to dream, this Archbishop speaks with a clarity, a coherence and truth that enables the sheep to recognize the voice of the divine Master. The priestly Society which he founds to form true Catholic priests begins on a small scale, but by its resolute refusal of the Conciliar errors and of their basis in liberal Catholicism, it draws to itself a remainder of true Catholics all over the world, and it constitutes the backbone of a whole movement within the Church which will go under the name of Traditionalism.
But this movement is intolerable to the churchmen of the Newchurch who mean to replace Catholicism with liberal Catholicism. Backed by the media and State governments, they do everything they can to discredit, disgrace and ostracize the courageous Archbishop. In 1976 Paul VI suspends him “a divinis”, in 1988 John-Paul II “excommunicates” him. He is a supreme nuisance to the Conciliar Popes because his voice of truth has the effect of showing up their pack of lies and of imperilling the betrayal they mean to carry out. And despite being persecuted, despite even being “excommunicated”, he holds firm, as do the large number of the priests of his Society.
Such faithfulness to the truth obtains from God a dozen years of internal peace and external prosperity for the Society. In 1991 the great Archbishop dies, but for another nine years his work carries on, faithful to the anti-liberal principles on which it was built. So what will the Conciliar Romans do to bring the resistance to an end? They will exchange the stick for the carrot.
In 2000 a major Jubilee Year pilgrimage of the Society to Rome shows forth in the basilicas and streets of Rome the power of the Society. The Romans are impressed, despite themselves. A Cardinal invites the four Society bishops to a sumptuous luncheon in his apartment. Three of them accept. Immediately after this most brotherly encounter, contacts between Rome and the Society which had grown rather cold over the last 12 years, pick up again, and with them begins a powerful process of seduction, as one might say, by means of scarlet buttons and marble halls.
Indeed contacts warm up again so swiftly that by the end of the year many priests and laity of Tradition are already afraid of a reconciliation taking place between Catholic Tradition and the liberal Council. The reconciliation does not come about for the moment, but the language of Society headquarters in Menzingen is beginning to change, and over the 12 years to come, it will show itself ever less hostile to Rome and ever more open to the Newchurch, to its media and their world. And while at the top of the Society the way is being paved for the reconciliation of irreconcilables, so amongst the priests and laity the attitude towards the Conciliar Popes and Church, towards everything worldly and liberal, is becoming more and more favourable. After all, is the modern world that surrounds us really as bad as it is made out to be?
This advance of liberalism within the Society, noticed by a minority of priests and laity but apparently not noticed by the great majority, became evident to many more in the spring of this year when, following on the failure in the spring of 2011 of the Doctrinal Discussions to bring the doctrines of Tradition and the Council together, the Society’s Catholic policy up till then of “No practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement” changed overnight into the liberal policy of “No doctrinal agreement, therefore a practical agreement”. And in mid-April the Superior General offered to Rome, as basis for a practical agreement, an ambiguous text, openly favourable to the “hermeneutic of continuity” which is Benedict XVI’s favourite recipe to reconcile, precisely, the Council with Tradition ! “We need a new way of thinking,” the Superior General said in May to a meeting of priests of the Society’s Austrian District. In other words, the leader of the Society founded in 1970 to resist the novelties of the Council, was proposing to reconcile it with the Council. Today the Society is conciliatory. Tomorrow it is to be fully Conciliar!
It is difficult to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre’s foundation can have been led to bracket out the principles on which it was founded, but such is the seductive power of the fantasies of our godless world, modernist and liberal. Notwithstanding, reality does not give way to fantasies, and it forms part of reality that one cannot undo the principles of a founder without undoing his foundation. A founder has special graces that none of his successors have. As Padre Pio cried out when the Superiors of his Congregation were starting to “renew” his Congregation in accordance with the new way of thinking of the Council, just closed: “What are you doing with the Founder?” The Society’s Superior General, General Council and General Chapter may keep Archbishop Lefebvre on hand as a mascot, but that will not help if they all share in a new way of thinking that by-passes the crucial reasons for which he founded the Society. Therefore however good their intentions, they are leading the Society to its ruin by a betrayal parallel in all respects to that of Vatican II.
But let us be just, let us not exaggerate. Since the beginning of this slow collapse of the Society, there have always been priests and laity who saw clear and did their best to resist. In the spring of this year their resistance became more weighty and numerous, so that the General Chapter of last July did place an obstacle in the way of a false Rome-SSPX agreement. But will that obstacle hold up? One may fear not. In front of some 40 Society priests on retreat in Écône in September, the Superior General, referring to his policy with regard to Rome, admitted: “I was wrong,” but whose fault was it ? – “The Romans deceived me.” Likewise from the whole springtime crisis he said that there had arisen “ a great distrust within the Society” which would need to be healed “by acts and not just by words”, but whose fault was it ? Judging by his acts since September, which includes this letter of October 4, he is blaming the priests and laity who failed to put their trust in him as their leader. After the Chapter as before, it seems as though he can brook no opposition to his conciliatory and Conciliar policy.
And that is the real reason why the Superior General has given several times the formal order to close down “Eleison Comments”. Indeed the “Comments” have repeatedly criticized the Society authorities’ conciliatory policy towards Rome, thereby attacking them implicitly. Now if in this criticism and these attacks there has sometimes been a failure to observe the respect normally due to the office or persons of the Society authorities, I readily beg forgiveness of anyone concerned, but I think that anybody actually reading the particular “Comments” implicated will recognize that the criticism and attacks usually abstracted from the persons, because the issues at stake are far more than just personal.
And if we do come to the great problem far surpassing mere persons, let us call to mind the immense confusion presently reigning in the Church, and placing in peril the eternal salvation of souls without number. Is it not the duty of a bishop to uncover the true roots of this confusion and to denounce them in public? How many bishops in the whole wide world see clear as Archbishop Lefebvre saw clear, and how many are teaching accordingly? How many of them are still teaching Catholic doctrine at all? Surely very few. Then is now the moment to be trying to silence a bishop who is doing so, if one is to judge by the number of souls that hang on to the “Comments” as they would to a lifebelt? How in particular can another bishop be wanting to shut them down when he himself has just had to admit to his priests that he let himself be deceived for many a long year on the same great questions ?
Likewise, if the rebellious bishop took upon himself – for the first time in nigh on four years – an independent apostolate, how can he be blamed for having accepted an invitation, coming from outside the Society, to give the sacrament of Confirmation and to preach the word of truth? Is that not the very function of a bishop? And if he is accused of having preached what was a word of “confusion”, there is always the same answer: what he said in Brazil was confusing only for people who follow the line confessed to be an error, as evoked above.
So if he does seem for years to have been separating himself from the Society, the truth is that he has been distancing himself from the conciliatory Society, and not from that of the Archbishop. And if he seems insubordinate to any exercise of authority on the part of Society leaders, the truth is that that applies only to orders running counter to the purposes for which the Society was founded. In fact how many other orders are there at all, besides the order to close down the “Comments”, which he can be blamed for having disobeyed in a “formal, obstinate and pertinacious” manner? Is there even one other such order? Since Archbishop Lefebvre refused to obey only acts of authority of Church leaders which were of a nature to destroy the Church, his disobedience was more apparent than real. Likewise refusing to close down the “Comments” is a disobedience more apparent than real.
For indeed history repeats itself, and the Devil keeps coming back. Just as yesterday Vatican II wished to reconcile the Catholic Church with the modern world, so today one could say that Benedict XVI and the Society’s Superior General both wish to reconcile Catholic Tradition and the Council; so again tomorrow, unless God intervenes between now and then, the leaders of the Catholic Resistance will be trying to reconcile it with Tradition henceforth Conciliar.
In brief, your Excellency, you may now go ahead and exclude me, because the arguments above are not likely to persuade you, but the exclusion will be more apparent than real. I have been a member of the Archbishop’s Society ever since my perpetual engagement. I have been one of its priests for 36 years. I have been one of its bishops, like yourself, for nearly a quarter of a century. That is not all to be wiped out with one stroke of a pen. Member of the Archbishop’s Society I therefore remain, and I wait.
Had you remained faithful to the Archbishop’s heritage, and had I myself been notably unfaithful, gladly I would recognize your right to exclude me. But things being as they are, I hope I shall not be lacking in the respect due to your office if I suggest that for the glory of God, for the salvation of souls, for the internal peace of the Society and for your own eternal salvation, you would do better yourself to resign as Superior General than to exclude myself. May the good Lord give you the grace, the light and the strength to perform such an outstanding act of humility and of devotion to the common good of everybody.
And so, as I have so often finished the letters I have written to you over the years,
Dominus tecuм, may the Lord be with you.
+Richard Williamson.
My own personal opinion of the priests in Ireland is their response to the crisis has been inadequate to put it midly. They have chosen to remain silent in public.
It would take a miracle to get rid of Bishop Fellay.
Silence and blind obedience have both played a massive part in the crisis in the SSPX. Pride also.
Laity are to blame for not questioning enough. For clarification, I mean laity in general.
The blame lays at the door of Bishop Fellay and Menzingen.
An impression created in Ireland and elsewhere is "once I have a chapel to attend, and a school for the children, all is ok". No desire to rock the boat as beyond the comfort zone is the unknown. People get comfortable. I mean people in general and as I said before, you can't put the fight into someone, who is not a fighter nor has any inclination to fight.
I feel momentum was lost. Bishop Fellay should of been removed.
Quote from: John GraceMy own personal opinion of the priests in Ireland is their response to the crisis has been inadequate to put it midly. They have chosen to remain silent in public.
It would take a miracle to get rid of Bishop Fellay.
Silence and blind obedience have both played a massive part in the crisis in the SSPX. Pride also.
Laity are to blame for not questioning enough. For clarification, I mean laity in general.
The blame lays at the door of Bishop Fellay and Menzingen.
An impression created in Ireland and elsewhere is "once I have a chapel to attend, and a school for the children, all is ok". No desire to rock the boat as beyond the comfort zone is the unknown. People get comfortable. I mean people in general and as I said before, you can't put the fight into someone, who is not a fighter nor has any inclination to fight.
I feel momentum was lost. Bishop Fellay should of been removed.
I happen to be a salesman by trade.
I have learned that the ability to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt will stop people dead in their tracks.
It will make them afraid of making a bad decision.
I can use it to keep from losing a customer (i.e., the devil you know is better than the devil you don't).
Similar psychology is at work amongst Bishop WIlliamson's sympathizers inside the SSPX:
They are not sure what leaving the SSPX would look like; things are not clear for them; the unknown dissuades them; fear stops them from doing anything.
And in that manner, I retain my customer, and Menzingen retains its priest.
At least, I am sure this is one of many factors at work.
We now have the complete audio files of weekend. (There was a problem with the recording, fortunately someone else had made a personal recording, and he sent us his, which work fine.)
Can anyone please suggest a website where we can upload the audio files, so that you can start listening?
I am still chasing the videos. Our cameraman has had a busy week.
We now have the complete audio files of weekend. (There was a problem with the recording, fortunately someone else had made a personal recording, and he sent us his, which work fine.)
Can anyone please suggest a website where we can upload the audio files, so that you can start listening?
I am still chasing the videos. Our cameraman has had a busy week.
I've got dropbox. That's for sending files. What we need is somewhere to upload them so that there can be a link to dowload them from...
When you take into account that some were not even SSPX (e.g. Wessex from IA, John Grace from CathInfo - and they both couldn't be bothered to attend the second day), Sedevacantists, some reporters, at least one who sort to remonstrate with Fr. Pfiffer, some just out of curiosity, children of parents attending and last, but by no means least, IONA members, the number in attendance is even more bleak.
Numbers are not that important, but it is comforting to know that the overwhelming majority of Society faithful have not lost their minds.Quote
As always they resort to insult.
Richard
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12473&st=50QuoteWhen you take into account that some were not even SSPX (e.g. Wessex from IA, John Grace from CathInfo - and they both couldn't be bothered to attend the second day), Sedevacantists, some reporters, at least one who sort to remonstrate with Fr. Pfiffer, some just out of curiosity, children of parents attending and last, but by no means least, IONA members, the number in attendance is even more bleak.
To address the point raised by Richard on IA. Firstly, he is correct, I am not a member of the SSPX.
Yes, one woman challenged Fr Pfeiffer and she stated the obvious that Fr Morgan is District Superior. It was pointed out to her that laity are not members of the SSPX.
As for me not bothering to attend the second day, I would of had to have left early anyways, and was familiar with the subject matter that Fr Kramer spoke about.
I attended Mass he offered a couple of times in the past.
My not attending the 2nd day was nothing personal against Fr Kramer or the organisers of the conference.
I dislike and try avoid the London Underground so had to cross the city by bus and by foot. I also hate cities. I had a train to take.
I travelled through three countries to be in London. I kept to Tradition and travelled by boat. I tried to keep my journey as Distributist as possible.
Apparently Bishop Williamson was going to attend at the last minute, but got scared because of the media - so he decided to go to India to do confirmations at the last minute, did he?!?
Quote from: John GraceRichard
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12473&st=50QuoteWhen you take into account that some were not even SSPX (e.g. Wessex from IA, John Grace from CathInfo - and they both couldn't be bothered to attend the second day), Sedevacantists, some reporters, at least one who sort to remonstrate with Fr. Pfiffer, some just out of curiosity, children of parents attending and last, but by no means least, IONA members, the number in attendance is even more bleak.
To address the point raised by Richard on IA. Firstly, he is correct, I am not a member of the SSPX.
Yes, one woman challenged Fr Pfeiffer and she stated the obvious that Fr Morgan is District Superior. It was pointed out to her that laity are not members of the SSPX.
As for me not bothering to attend the second day, I would of had to have left early anyways, and was familiar with the subject matter that Fr Kramer spoke about.
I attended Mass he offered a couple of times in the past.
My not attending the 2nd day was nothing personal against Fr Kramer or the organisers of the conference.
I dislike and try avoid the London Underground so had to cross the city by bus and by foot. I also hate cities. I had a train to take.
I travelled through three countries to be in London. I kept to Tradition and travelled by boat. I tried to keep my journey as Distributist as possible.
Yes. The same man seems to be claiming that everyone was "very disappointed" with the turnout. Well, we had 60 people on Saturday morning, rising to 70 during the day. The hall capacity is only 80, and we booked the place a couple of months ago, before the enemy started their campaign of lies. Why would we book a place that size, if we were expecting far more? Nice to see that the campaign of lies is still going strong, even after the event!
The same man also claims that there were "hundreds" for Bishop Fellay's conference. This simply isn't true. There were a couple of "hundreds" for confirmations, but that was Sunday morning in the biggest Mass centre in all of England Scotland Wales and Ireland (which is big all year round, even in the holidays, because lots of families live near the school), so it's hardly surprising. There's usually a good 200 there on a Sunday, even in the holidays, and its the only place in the District with two Sunday Masses. When Bishop Fellay gave his conference, however, it was a very differnt story altogether. One person tells me there were "less than 100" another person tells me "about 80" people.
Pretty much everything else he says in that post is provably wrong too, but then how would he know, he's not even in England. Apparently Bishop Williamson was going to attend at the last minute, but got scared because of the media - so he decided to go to India to do confirmations at the last minute, did he?!? It's all nonsense...
I understand why, er, "Richard" as he calls himself is so angry and frustrated, however. His usual response to any "rebel" initiative is "Menzingen have already been informed." He must be puzzled how to respond to this one. We actually want Menzingen to be informed! We've left the SSPX, what are you going to threaten us with now...?!?
Is anyone able to transfer this here? Niel, you seem to be good at 'recapturing' a page in Cathinfo format. If I try to do it, it will lose all fonts, etc. Thanks.
http://www.therecusant.com/conference-support
A 'Pilgrimage of Reparation' to Walsingham, the National Shrine of England, will take place on Saturday 13th and Sunday 14th July, 2013, to beg God's forgiveness and make reparation for the General Chapter of the SSPX whose unhappy anniversary it is, and to ask that we be spared the evil effects of that same unfortunate General Chapter. We hope that as many Catholics as possible will make the effort to attend, in spite of the relatively short notice - surely Almighty God will richly reward any efforts we make with a pure intention. Having to overcome difficulties of travel, distance etc. will be even more worth the while, since it is a pilgrimage of reparation.
'
A full programme of events will be announced nearer the time, and will be planned to include Saturday and Sunday Mass.
'
Please make a note in your diary now to avoid clashes. We also strongly recommend that those wishing to arrange accommodation do so as soon as possible, as places go quickly in summer. If you would like us to suggest possiblilities for accommodation, please contact us via recusantsspx@hotmail.co.uk
'
Our Lady of Walsingham, pray for us!
I haven't been asked to clarify yet but will do now regarding Fr Sherry and Fr Gallagher. Am I saying they have compromised? No but belong to a pious union, who surrendered and compromised formally with the doctrinal declaration.
People can get ratty and bitchy all they like but both priests have been silent. It doesn't mean they are for an agreement or for the doctrinal declaration that has not been withdrawn and bear in mind the points made by The Recusant earlier on the thread.
As as far as I can see Fr Bufe is the only priest in Ireland openly resisting.
Many have said it is not the correct time to be vocal. When is the correct time?
As I said the conference addressed all the questions in the crisis. Attending a Society Mass is a matter for a person's conscience now.
The full audio of both days is now available here: http://www.therecusant.com/conference-audio