Author Topic: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism (Read 6638 times)

Matthew · « **on:** March 22, 2017, 08:30:02 PM »

Bishop Faure Resigns from USML Over Sedevacantism
March 22, 2017Sean Johnson
Uncategorized

Following months of intrigue, dissension, and unfruitful discussion, Bishop Jean-Michel Faure has resigned his membership in the USML.

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}]At issue was the matter of sedevacantism.
Specifically:[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size]

Whether sedevacantists were to be allowed in the USML
Whether sedevacantists were to be allowed into the seminary via the USML

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
A few weeks ago, the sedevacantist members of the USML convened a meeting of debatable legitimacy to consider these two issues (but most particularly, the admission of Fr. Pierre Roy of Canada).
All non-sedevacantist USML members except one (Fr. Pivert) refused to attend the meeting in protest, but the sedevacantists were not to be thwarted. They went through with the meeting, admitted Fr. Patrick Roy, and announced their decision to the abstaining members (some of whom also protested the maneuver after the fact).
Bishop Faure was not the only one to resign from the USML over the matter of sedevacantism:
Fr. Rene Trincado also tendered his resignation, and another resignation is expected to be submitted within the next week or so.
All told, 5 of 8 members opposed the admission of Fr. Roy into the USML, which is now being willingly surrendered to the control of the sedevacantists, who now comprise half its members.
The question will remain as to how and why Fr. Rioult and Fr. Pinaud were permitted to have become members in the first place. A decision back in 2014 seems to have permitted a collaboration with such priests, but which ran squarely against Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1980 statement that:
“The Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope”
Against this declaration, it is sometimes mentioned that the Archbishop violated this statement by ordaining Fr. Belmont, only to expel him a few months later for his sedevacantism. Alternately, it is argued that Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to collaborate with sedevacantists like Fr. Coache well after 1980.
As regards examples like Fr. Coache (who was not a member of the SSPX), the explanation seems to be that Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to offer some occasional collaboration with sedevacantists ad extra (i.e., outside the SSPX), but not to tolerate them within the SSPX (i.e., ad infra). As for those like Fr. Belmont, obviously, if Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to have ordained him, it was with the hope of Fr. Belmont’s amendment, or it would have been incoherent in the extreme to have ordained him against his own rule, only to have expelled him three months later for the same!
In any case, though time has shown that admission of these sedes into the USML was a mistake, the loss of the USML is of marginal importance in the wake of Bishop Faure’s canonical erection of the SAJM (which will preclude in its Constitutions the admission of any sedevacantists -which includes those who refust to pray for the Pope in the Mass- into the seminary, or their incardination into the Society).
Those Constitutions will be published publicly soon.
Meanwhile, the preclusion of sedevacantists from the SAJM and its seminary makes curious this excerpt of the USML declaration posted today, which proclaims:
“When the need arises to administer the sacrament of Confirmation, the priests of the USML will call upon a bishop of the ‘Resistance’ to be kind enough to come to Quebec.”
Perhaps the Resistance bishops will continue to offer assistance to the sedevacantists with regard to confirmations, perhaps not. But it is inconceivable -in light of Bishop Faure’s resignation, and the Constitutions of the SAJM which preclude sedevacantist admission to the seminary- that the Resistance bishops would ordain their priests.
This means that the NUC (“non una cuм”) priests will be forced to accept the logical consequences of their position in the future, and seek out sedevacantist bishops (which they logically should not object to) to perform this office.
The surrender of the USML into the control of the sedevacantists also brings much needed clarity to the faithful:
The Resistance bishops do not support or condone sedevacantism, and the SAJM has no part with them.
This separation is also an act of charity on the part of Bishop Faure, in that the sedevacantists are made to feel the seriousness of their theological error, which they promote as a light and trifling personal choice:
“Having no intention to prevent anyone from reflecting or holding an opinion on the whys and wherefores of the crisis in the Church, the priests of the USML ask the faithful to respect the positions of one another and not try to impose their personal views. They reiterate their decision not to draw conclusions on the question of the Papacy, despite the enduring and unprecedented crisis, but rather to await the judgement of the Church.”
Hopefully, they will be humble enough to realize that they have painted themselves into a corner, and will repent of their erroneous position.
Meanwhile, a shot is fired over the bow of the naysayers of a certain Sect, who tried to pretend that Bishop Faure admitted known sedevacantists into the seminary (whereas the reality is that, with reference to the recent interviews given to Bishop Sanborn’s seminarians (skewed by followers of Fr. Pfeiffer to pretend Bishop Faure was “sede friendly”), Mr. Jacob Sons was never a sedevacantist while in Avrille, and Henri de la Chanonie was never even invited to join!). The resignation of Bishop Faure, and the Constitutions make foolish the idea that he has any tolerance for sedevacantism.[/font][/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size]

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2017, 11:17:41 PM »

What does Bishop Faure's resignation from the United States Munitions List have to do with his opposition to sedevacantism?

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2017, 12:28:46 AM »

What is "USML" ?

Incredulous · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2017, 02:35:13 AM »

I hope there wasn't there any "French slapping" of the sedes with white hand gloves ?

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2017, 03:14:48 AM »

Quote from: Croix de Fer on March 23, 2017, 12:28:46 AM

What is "USML" ?

I just looked it up. If anyone else doesn't know for what the acronym stands, here is a google translation from French:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_sacerdotale_Marcel-Lefebvre&prev=search

poche · « **Reply #5 on:** March 23, 2017, 04:53:41 AM »

Does that mean that the USML is now a sedevacantist organization?

AMDGJMJ · « **Reply #6 on:** March 23, 2017, 06:58:37 AM »

I really hope that all of the politics going on with this does not cause problems for the consecration of Fr. Zendejas in May...

flatearth · « **Reply #7 on:** March 23, 2017, 09:22:11 AM »

I just posted this over on abl3

I'm going to post something that will run against the current consensus. I trust the admin will hear me out.
Mr. Johnsons article should be taken with a pinch of salt. This, we must remember, is a man who refuses to attend Father Edward MacDonalds Mass for no good reason when he visits the area. Even though Father MacDonald is a totally reliable member of the resistance. His crime was trying to give Father Pfeiffer a chance. This is public knowledge and I am not revealing any secrets here. Mr Johnson has a history of over-the-top, slightly feminine, reactions to events. A quick survey of his posts on Cathinfo confirms this.

I'm sorry to have to say this, and I have held my tongue for a longtime in the hope that Mr Johnson might at least calm this character flaw.

That aside, let's deal with the issue.

Archbishop Lefebvre had sedevacantists teaching in the seminary at econe.

His attitude was one of charity. Certainly true, he did not allow them to be members of the SSPX, and this was his right. He wanted to preserve a certain unity. But this does not mean he went on sedevacantist witch-hunts, like some seem to delight in.

Not saying the Una-cuм is NOT the same as being a sedevacantist. Admittedly, most who do not say it are sedevacantists, and many of them can be quite annoying and obsessive, but in the case of these certain priests, it is simply because they lack to courage to pray for such a Pope in their Mass. They are taking una cuм in it's true sense - to pray FOR. Mr Johnson would be very surprised to learn who I got this information from, trust me.

Now the priests of the USML have released a statement about this. I am enclosing a google translation of it, because it is only in french. You will see how it is nuanced. Something drama queens don't like.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcanadafidele.com%2F2017%2F03%2F21%2Fprecisions-concernant-le-ministere-des-pretres-de-lusml-au-quebec%2F&edit-text=&act=url
Interestingly Mr Johnsons article did not include the link to this. Because when you read the totality of it, you see that his citation could infact be quoted the other way too.

It is worth pointing out that history is written by the victors. With a seminary and lots of seminarians in the hands of the SAJM, it is unlikely that the nuaces of this situation will be remembered. They have a lot going for them, and this is good. They are an excellent society.

But their central organisation, means that they a prey to falling into the same group think that the SSPX fell into, and thus into making another similar mistake someday. With God's help may this never happen. So let's remain calm in the face of difficult situations and try to see the different sides to situations, while always adhering to the truth. Just as our Sovereign Judge will do with us.

Benzel · « **Reply #8 on:** March 23, 2017, 09:29:33 AM »

Quote from: flatearth on March 23, 2017, 09:22:11 AM

I just posted this over on abl3

I'm going to post something that will run against the current consensus. I trust the admin will hear me out.
Mr. Johnsons article should be taken with a pinch of salt. This, we must remember, is a man who refuses to attend Father Edward MacDonalds Mass for no good reason when he visits the area. Even though Father MacDonald is a totally reliable member of the resistance. His crime was trying to give Father Pfeiffer a chance. This is public knowledge and I am not revealing any secrets here. Mr Johnson has a history of over-the-top, slightly feminine, reactions to events. A quick survey of his posts on Cathinfo confirms this.

I'm sorry to have to say this, and I have held my tongue for a longtime in the hope that Mr Johnson might at least calm this character flaw.

That aside, let's deal with the issue.

Archbishop Lefebvre had sedevacantists teaching in the seminary at econe.

His attitude was one of charity. Certainly true, he did not allow them to be members of the SSPX, and this was his right. He wanted to preserve a certain unity. But this does not mean he went on sedevacantist witch-hunts, like some seem to delight in.

Not saying the Una-cuм is NOT the same as being a sedevacantist. Admittedly, most who do not say it are sedevacantists, and many of them can be quite annoying and obsessive, but in the case of these certain priests, it is simply because they lack to courage to pray for such a Pope in their Mass. They are taking una cuм in it's true sense - to pray FOR. Mr Johnson would be very surprised to learn who I got this information from, trust me.

Now the priests of the USML have released a statement about this. I am enclosing a google translation of it, because it is only in french. You will see how it is nuanced. Something drama queens don't like.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcanadafidele.com%2F2017%2F03%2F21%2Fprecisions-concernant-le-ministere-des-pretres-de-lusml-au-quebec%2F&edit-text=&act=url
Interestingly Mr Johnsons article did not include the link to this. Because when you read the totality of it, you see that his citation could infact be quoted the other way too.

It is worth pointing out that history is written by the victors. With a seminary and lots of seminarians in the hands of the SAJM, it is unlikely that the nuaces of this situation will be remembered. They have a lot going for them, and this is good. They are an excellent society.

But their central organisation, means that they a prey to falling into the same group think that the SSPX fell into, and thus into making another similar mistake someday. With God's help may this never happen. So let's remain calm in the face of difficult situations and try to see the different sides to situations, while always adhering to the truth. Just as our Sovereign Judge will do with us.

"Mr. Johnsons article should be taken with a pinch of salt. "
Flatearth, please say what is false in Mr. Johnson's article.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #9 on:** March 23, 2017, 09:33:51 AM »

I thought that +Williamson formed the USML. Is this correct? If it is, why has he allowed it to become populated with sedevacantists? I am not all that familiar with each of these priests, but it is no secret that Fr. Pinaud has been "non-una cuм" (this is the way he seems to be described usually; I'm not sure if that is simply an English rendering of a common European colloquial or what accounts for the terminological difference between one who is "non una cuм" and one who is simply "sedevacantist") for some time. Remember the shenanigans in Quebec when Fr. Pfeiffer ran up there to warn everyone to stay away from the recently released from Fellay's dungeon Fr. Pinaud?

flatearth · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2017, 10:12:01 AM »

Benzel,

It is his rational and calm judgment in the matter that I am calling into question.
That should be obvious.

I am aware, that with the quasi hero worship surrounding Mr. Johnson on this forum,this point may not be clear to some.

May I suggest the practice of humility and recollection, when in the face of new information. This prevents a lot of misunderstanding in the practice of fraternal charity.

Meg · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2017, 10:13:48 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on March 23, 2017, 09:33:51 AM

I thought that +Williamson formed the USML. Is this correct? If it is, why has he allowed it to become populated with sedevacantists? I am not all that familiar with each of these priests, but it is no secret that Fr. Pinaud has been "non-una cuм" (this is the way he seems to be described usually; I'm not sure if that is simply an English rendering of a common European colloquial or what accounts for the terminological difference between one who is "non una cuм" and one who is simply "sedevacantist") for some time. Remember the shenanigans in Quebec when Fr. Pfeiffer ran up there to warn everyone to stay away from the recently released from Fellay's dungeon Fr. Pinaud?

That's a really good question. Indeed, why has the USML been allowed to become populated with sedevacantists?

The article says..."All told, 5 of 8 members opposed to the admission of Fr. Roy into the USML, which is now being willingly surrendered to the sedevacantists, who now comprise half its members."

"The question remains as to how Fr. Rioult and FR. Rinaud were permitted to become members in the first place."

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #12 on:** March 23, 2017, 10:26:49 AM »

Quote from: Meg on March 23, 2017, 10:13:48 AM

That's a really good question. Indeed, why has the USML been allowed to become populated with sedevacantists?

The article says..."All told, 5 of 8 members opposed to the admission of Fr. Roy into the USML, which is now being willingly surrendered to the sedevacantists, who now comprise half its members."

"The question remains as to how Fr. Rioult and FR. Rinaud were permitted to become members in the first place."

It was more of a rhetorical question; my take is that even if I'm incorrect that the organization was formed by +Williamson, the anti-sedevacantist (note: not the non-sedevacantist) flavors and sentiments that one can find throughout sedeplenia are not as representative as one might think. To Benzel's point, +ABL had good relationships with sedevacantists. The problems with "the nine" went far beyond sedevacantism, which was a minor point in the letters of 1983. +ABL only butted heads with sedevacantists when they butted heads with him first, and the only thing left of the vehemently sedevacantist crowd is what's found here and there (Cincinatti, Brooksville) and it's no secret that these clerics, though by my own estimation doing more good than ill, have a very long history of butting heads with most. In other words, it's more of a personality conflict than a doctrinal one, except inasmuch as a certain cleric (on either side of the aisle) takes a dogmatic position on a point of controversy. But even then, usually when pressed, such positions fade and you'll find that what seemed "dogmatic" was really just a very strong opinion.

Meg · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2017, 10:40:05 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan on March 23, 2017, 10:26:49 AM

It was more of a rhetorical question; my take is that even if I'm incorrect that the organization was formed by +Williamson, the anti-sedevacantist (note: not the non-sedevacantist) flavors and sentiments that one can find throughout sedeplenia are not as representative as one might think. To Benzel's point, +ABL had good relationships with sedevacantists. The problems with "the nine" went far beyond sedevacantism, which was a minor point in the letters of 1983. +ABL only butted heads with sedevacantists when they butted heads with him first, and the only thing left of the vehemently sedevacantist crowd is what's found here and there (Cincinatti, Brooksville) and it's no secret that these clerics, though by my own estimation doing more good than ill, have a very long history of butting heads with most. In other words, it's more of a personality conflict than a doctrinal one, except inasmuch as a certain cleric (on either side of the aisle) takes a dogmatic position on a point of controversy. But even then, usually when pressed, such positions fade and you'll find that what seemed "dogmatic" was really just a very strong opinion.

So it's only when they start problems by "butting heads," that sedevacantists become a problem, is that what you're saying? How does one know ahead of time if the sedes are going to become head butters, or not, when joining an organization? Can it always be assumed that they will not? And if they do become a problem, do you think they should just be tolerated?

Benzel · « **Reply #14 on:** March 23, 2017, 10:50:48 AM »

From an absolutely reliable source: Mr. Johnson tells the truth when he says that Bp. Faure resigned from the USML over the matter of sedevacantsim on march 7.

If Mithrandylan and Flatearththey are right, Bp. Faure is wrong. If Bp. Faure is right, Mithrandylan and Flatearththey are wrong.

Author Topic: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism (Read 6638 times)

Matthew

Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Neil Obstat

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Croix de Fer

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Incredulous

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Croix de Fer

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

poche

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

AMDGJMJ

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

flatearth

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Benzel

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Mithrandylan

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

flatearth

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Meg

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Mithrandylan

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Meg

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism

Benzel

Re: Bishop Faure resigns from USML over Sedevacantism