Author Topic: Are the Dominicans of Avrille Stupid? (Read 10575 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** January 31, 2014, 07:28:57 PM »

Everyone knows the Dominicans of Avrille are the powerhouses of doctrine in the traditional orb.

They have cast their lot with the resistance.

But the explanation we all get about why people join the resistance is that they have all been misled; they have acted upon rumors; ye are deceived; etc.

Granted there is some of that, and I know of it first hand.

But to pretend that, where there is smoke there is not a bit of fire is naive.

Am I to believe that the Dominicans (the Dominicans of Avrille!!) are such slouches, they have simply misunderstood.......everything?

There is absolutely nothing....at all...to worry about??

Really?

You could make the argument that Sean Johnson is deceived; that he is an idiot; that he is making conclusions without having all the necessary information.

In a good mood, I might even concede those points!

But the Dominicans???

No.

We are heading for a practical agreement, and minds are being prepared for it via the branding campaign.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** January 31, 2014, 09:57:27 PM »

The interesting thing is, I could create a dozen posts just like Sean's (defending the Resistance).

GREC
+Fellay's behavior (including secret negotiations with Rome)
+Fellay's apparent political use of multiple Rosary Crusades
The branding campaign/new Disneyland seminary/new orientation towards the Modern World (hoping for flood from Novus Ordo)
+W's treatment and ouster
Words quoted from younger/new SSPX priests
The worldwide scope of the Resistance
The fact that the Resistance operates everywhere and independently
The huge variety of priests and religious that have endorsed the Resistance
etc.

Each of which would justify starting a Resitance from scratch, if there were no other evidence!

Moreover, those compelling reasons would all be there forever, staring me in the face. Even if I got fed up with one or more Resistance priests for whatever human reason (which I haven't -- let there be no confusion!) it wouldn't change the righteousness of the cause.

Let that be a point of meditation for those who would dismiss an organization because of the priest in the pulpit. That is actually very female. So those of the fairer sex are somewhat excused from acting in such a person-based manner, but the men who do so? They should be ashamed.

Men go by principles and ideals, not personalities. To focus on the persons involved is how God created women -- not men.

The classic example is to have a bad priest, or a priest who offends a parishioner. The parishioner leaves -- not just the chapel, but the entire SSPX, which he proceeds to criticize and lambast both in and out of season.

As if that priest WERE the SSPX... Again, that's how women are inclined by nature to operate. Not men.

dreamtomorrow · « **Reply #2 on:** January 31, 2014, 10:08:01 PM »

I heard they were retracting their support. How many Dominicans are there in that group?

hugeman · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2014, 10:44:51 PM »

Quote from: dreamtomorrow

I heard they were retracting their support. How many Dominicans are there in that group?

Dream Tomorrow:

Who is retracting what support for what? Is there any basis that the Dominicans of France are withdrawing their support for the positions of the Resisting priests and laity?
If they have simply declined to be affiliated with any specific group, that may be understandable; but if they are going back into the accordista camp-- that would be sad for them, indeed.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2014, 10:48:16 PM »

Quote from: dreamtomorrow

I heard they were retracting their support. How many Dominicans are there in that group?

Originally 12.

The only one not to side with the resistance, so far as I am aware, was Fr. Albert, who worked very closely wih the US District.

AJNC · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2014, 12:28:08 AM »

Quote from: TimeToFight

Exactly right.

The SSPX and Neo-SSPX and SSPX Resistance people, as a whole, have been programmed, for forty years, to accept an untenable position. The differences between the three are trivial, good for forty years of argument without resolution. Good for nothing else.

If you step back from the microscope, the three as a whole, are one; one bacterium plus its reactive agents, antibodies. Each exists only in the context of, in relationship to each other. Take one away and the remainder cease to exist. And importantly, they do not identify with anything outside the lab dish, with something permanent. They do not have a permanent or secure foundation. They are forever in splitsville, splitting hairs or logs, cannibalising each other; they are dedicated to that state of argument-without-resolution.

Even in the Resistance, we have factions, rogue priests, good priests.

Resolution looks like this. Choose a position with a solid foundation, then build on it. That kills the argument that they are addicted to, and we can get back to genuine spiritual pursuits. But then they would have to make a hard choice (no, no, anything but the briar patch!), so they go back to the non-choice; the middle path; the state-without-foundation. Hope it just hangs around until the kids finish going to SSPX school.

People who are scared witless about Commitment, are quite used to the consequent argument-without-resolution, it is a way of life for them. For those of us who do not have such fears, Commitment is a state of peace.

People have committed so many years of their lives to the SSPX ( now XSPX/Resistance ) that they do not know what to do. They are up the creek without a paddle! I think it was Bishop Sanborn who warned some years ago, that even were there to be a split in the SSPX over Rome, the remnant would simply be more of the same - meaning that it too would accept a deal were it "favorable". Hutton Gibson and others ( now mostly dead or at a very advanced age ) warned about this decades ago. Some of it is in the book THE ENEMY IS HERE available as a free download on www.huttongibson.com

Wessex · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2014, 04:58:43 AM »

I am not sure that SSPX folk have been paying much attention over the years to doctrinal issues. And keeping these issues fuzzy gave the Society a larger audience than the other groups who opted for a more precise position than just 'traditional feeling'. True, it provided the sacraments and a 'safe' place for families but the passage of time has turned them into hostages or creatures of habit while their religious fate is decided for them by others. Trads entered the movement as individuals but most ended up being collectivised! Of course, those now under 50 only know the mainstream and a shaky revivalism. They lack personal experience of the old church when it was mainstream; they do not possess that sharp feeling of loss. Menzingen will be very conscious of this and may have decided that the needs of new generations are best served by atempting to integrate with reality on the best possible terms than boldly maintaining the Society's former position ..... which was not that firm at the best of times!

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2014, 06:11:43 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

I am not sure that SSPX folk have been paying much attention over the years to doctrinal issues. And keeping these issues fuzzy gave the Society a larger audience than the other groups who opted for a more precise position than just 'traditional feeling'. True, it provided the sacraments and a 'safe' place for families but the passage of time has turned them into hostages or creatures of habit while their religious fate is decided for them by others. Trads entered the movement as individuals but most ended up being collectivised! Of course, those now under 50 only know the mainstream and a shaky revivalism. They lack personal experience of the old church when it was mainstream; they do not possess that sharp feeling of loss. Menzingen will be very conscious of this and may have decided that the needs of new generations are best served by atempting to integrate with reality on the best possible terms than boldly maintaining the Society's former position ..... which was not that firm at the best of times!

I spoke to some SSPX laity in the past week. They were not aware of the developments regarding Dominicans of Avrille and other happenings.

They made the point to me once we have the Latin Mass everything else falls into place. I asked them does doctrine matter? They said it did. They are probably more moderate laity. I just got the impression they possibly believe the SSPX would never go wrong. They are good sorts, who I wouldn't regard as Modernists, but I do believe Bishop Fellay can rely on their support.

When there is a practical agreement laity will have to take a stand.

John Grace · « **Reply #8 on:** February 01, 2014, 06:23:59 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Everyone knows the Dominicans of Avrille are the powerhouses of doctrine in the traditional orb.

They have cast their lot with the resistance.

But the explanation we all get about why people join the resistance is that they have all been misled; they have acted upon rumors; ye are deceived; etc.

Granted there is some of that, and I know of it first hand.

But to pretend that, where there is smoke there is not a bit of fire is naive.

Am I to believe that the Dominicans (the Dominicans of Avrille!!) are such slouches, they have simply misunderstood.......everything?

There is absolutely nothing....at all...to worry about??

Really?

You could make the argument that Sean Johnson is deceived; that he is an idiot; that he is making conclusions without having all the necessary information.

In a good mood, I might even concede those points!

But the Dominicans???

No.

We are heading for a practical agreement, and minds are being prepared for it via the branding campaign.

The key word is doctrine. Everybody knows the SSPX is heading for a practical agreement. Rome stated they will change the thinking of Traditionalists. They stated it will take time.

Frances · « **Reply #9 on:** February 01, 2014, 09:11:04 AM »

:dancing-banana:
Not all women base their judgement in moral/doctrinal matters on the personality of the priest. BTW, there are men who fall into that trap. I went to SSPX because it was where the True Religion was practiced, not because Bp. Williamson was so sweet and nithe and Fr. Pfeiffer a man of high breeding and culture.

Our Lord promises He will never forsake His Church. The Dominicans and all of us will ultimately answer to God not for where we heard Mass, even less for which priest said Mass, but for whether we kept the Faith.

John Grace · « **Reply #10 on:** February 01, 2014, 09:15:29 AM »

Bishop Williamson is the only one of the four Bishops, who has remained faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre.

Bishop Fellay was only added because a Mr Lovey was able to influence the Archbishop. Bishop Fellay and his gang bided their time until the Archbishop died. Then adopted their carrot and stick approach.

In 1991, he was praising Vatican II.

Bishop de Galarreta and Bishop Tissier were built up into something they never were.

Bishop de Galarreta is firmly behind Bishop Fellay. Bishop Tissier can't decide.

John Grace · « **Reply #11 on:** February 01, 2014, 09:25:59 AM »

To a degree the SSPX do/have take their laity for fools. One of the main reasons I sent the 'pious union' in England back their magazine and cancelled my subscription.

The priests of the resistance are honest with the laity and deserve our support. What I got with the 'Church of Fellay' was/is lies, silence. deceit, abandoning souls.

Even on this very forum a woman in America stated she was placed under "holy obedience" by a rather manipulative priest.

Even Neil Obstat stated SSPX laity don't seem to mind being taken for a ride.

John Grace · « **Reply #12 on:** February 01, 2014, 09:31:21 AM »

I appreciate the honesty and integrity of the priests of the resistance. The likes of Fr Morgan in England have let down the laity.All to save face for liberals, who betrayed the Archbishop. I don't intend to every stand inside an SSPX chapel again.

John Grace · « **Reply #13 on:** February 01, 2014, 09:36:15 AM »

Quote from: Frances

:dancing-banana:
Not all women base their judgement in moral/doctrinal matters on the personality of the priest. BTW, there are men who fall into that trap. I went to SSPX because it was where the True Religion was practiced, not because Bp. Williamson was so sweet and nithe and Fr. Pfeiffer a man of high breeding and culture.

Our Lord promises He will never forsake His Church. The Dominicans and all of us will ultimately answer to God not for where we heard Mass, even less for which priest said Mass, but for whether we kept the Faith.

It goes back to doctrine and keeping the faith. Bishop Williamson highlighted this at the 'Voice in the Wilderness' conference.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** February 01, 2014, 10:05:49 AM »

.

Quote from: John Grace

Post
Quote from: Wessex

I am not sure that SSPX folk have been paying much attention over the years to doctrinal issues. And keeping these issues fuzzy gave the Society a larger audience than the other groups who opted for a more precise position than just 'traditional feeling'. True, it provided the sacraments and a 'safe' place for families but the passage of time has turned them into hostages or creatures of habit while their religious fate is decided for them by others. Trads entered the movement as individuals but most ended up being collectivised! Of course, those now under 50 only know the mainstream and a shaky revivalism. They lack personal experience of the old church when it was mainstream; they do not possess that sharp feeling of loss. Menzingen will be very conscious of this and may have decided that the needs of new generations are best served by attempting to integrate with reality on the best possible terms than boldly maintaining the Society's former position ..... which was not that firm at the best of times!

I spoke to some SSPX laity in the past week. They were not aware of the developments regarding Dominicans of Avrille and other happenings.

They made the point to me once we have the Latin Mass everything else falls into place. I asked them does doctrine matter? They said it did. They are probably more moderate laity. I just got the impression they possibly believe the SSPX would never go wrong. They are good sorts, who I wouldn't regard as Modernists, but I do believe Bishop Fellay can rely on their support.

When there is a practical agreement laity will have to take a stand.

...

It goes back to doctrine and keeping the faith. Bishop Williamson highlighted this at the 'Voice in the Wilderness' conference.

The Menzingen-denizens have declared WAR on doctrine

and on the Catholic sense to recognize its importance!

This could be seen as the PRIMARY reason for the so-called expulsion of +Williamson: his courageous stand was simply intolerable.

So, in typical Liberal fashion, they indecently fished for some other reason to criticize him. He's a nαzι!! That was the square where they put all their poker chips.

But that was just the thing that would make their nefarious deed 'tolerable' to the MSM, and therefore the pew-sitters.

In the end, this "WAR on Doctrine" is the same approach John XXIII (soon to be Newcanonized!) established in 1962 in his M.R.S. of October 11th, the erstwhile Feast of the Divine Maternity of Our Lady.

Note: the declaration of WAR against DOCTRINE is a Freemasonic principle. The fact that the XSPX is cooperating with it doesn't have to make them Freemasons, because you don't have to BE a Mason to be doing the WORK of a Mason. Of course, Annibale Bugnini was an exceptional case, as he not only acted like one, but he WAS one. What will they say of +Fellay in years to come? Or Fr. Pfluger? Hmmmm? ..............

.