Where did the information come from that they were?

Hmm...

You make some interesting points.

I wonder what to make of the Avrille Dominicans' signature on the January resistance declaration.

Either they have wavered, or never gave consent to be included in the declaration,  or the website you reference simply hasn't been updated (which seems unlikely).

Proof one way or the other would be to confirm there are presently Dominicans studying in sspx seminaries.

Anyone?

Quote

I would think it's safe to assume that the Dominicans of Avrillé are also not part of the Resistance.

As far as I know, the Dominicans of Avrillé are not part of "the Resistance" as known under Fr. Pfeiffer, but they have courageously resisted +Fellay in his attempt to make them sign the "1989 Profession of Faith" and other matters.

Then who took the (unauthorized?) liberty to attach their names to the January resistance petition?

If that is what happened, it was a deception which does not speak well of the Resistance.

Someone better explain.

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote

I would think it's safe to assume that the Dominicans of Avrillé are also not part of the Resistance.

As far as I know, the Dominicans of Avrillé are not part of "the Resistance" as known under Fr. Pfeiffer, but they have courageously resisted +Fellay in his attempt to make them sign the "1989 Profession of Faith" and other matters.

Then who took the (unauthorized?) liberty to attach their names to the January resistance petition?

If that is what happened, it was a deception which does not speak well of the Resistance.

Someone better explain.

They RESIST the current Modernist direction of the SSPX. But I don't know what (if any) involvement they have with Fr. Pfeiffer's effort. For instance, they sent one of their priests to Germany at a request to provide the Sacraments after their (Germans) split with with the SSPX.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote

I would think it's safe to assume that the Dominicans of Avrillé are also not part of the Resistance.

As far as I know, the Dominicans of Avrillé are not part of "the Resistance" as known under Fr. Pfeiffer, but they have courageously resisted +Fellay in his attempt to make them sign the "1989 Profession of Faith" and other matters.

Then who took the (unauthorized?) liberty to attach their names to the January resistance petition?

If that is what happened, it was a deception which does not speak well of the Resistance.

Someone better explain.

They RESIST the current Modernist direction of the SSPX. But I don't know what (if any) involvement they have with Fr. Pfeiffer's effort. For instance, they sent one of their priests to Germany at a request to provide the Sacraments after their (Germans) split with with the SSPX.

Right, but the question is, how did their names end up on the resistance petition?

Guess we will have to wait for John Steven to give us the answer (unless someone else here speaks French?).

The following is not directly about the thread topic, but relates to it somewhat.  Unfortunately, all I can post is a google translation.

http://www.lasapiniere.info/archives/1848

The jurisdiction of Bishop Fellay and abuse of the Fraternity
Published April 7, 2014 by admin
Download PDF

A few years ago, Bishop Galarreta asked the father Thomas Aquinas resign as father prior of Santa Cruz. Shortly thereafter, Bishop Fellay asked, "to meet the Community and submit your resignation to all" (letter of 12 January 2010). What right and what jurisdiction can be done such things? To better 'convince' Bishop Galarreta also assured him that the district of America no longer send any vocation in Santa Cruz. That we tried these pressures? The common good or shelved all opponents to an agreement with modernist Rome?

June 21, 2012, Father Thouvenot called Father Prior Avrillé to ask him: "Father, if we sign an agreement with Rome, do you follow us?"  The father prior confessed to ignore what doctrinal basis would be based agreement with Rome.  Father Thouvenot replied: "Indeed, you do not know this text, I can not contact you.  It is secret.  You have to trust us. "The Prior father asked him two days of reflection. The next morning, before the deadline, the Dominicans received a fax from Bishop Fellay stating their refusal to order the three brothers of the community. Following this fax, Father Thouvenot wrote:

"I realized our conversation yesterday to Bishop Fellay, but obviously the mere fact that you did listen to the delirious sermon Abbe Koller to the community, such that it take more than 24 hours for answer a simple question of confidence in his authority, were enough to convince him that he had better postpone the ordinations. This morning, he sent a fax that you learn you. Hoping that you will close ranks and restore normal relations harmonious cooperation, I assure you of my religious devotion. "

These two facts amply justify the title of our article. Unfortunately other facts may further illustrate the gravity of the situation.

By what principle a prior or senior district may call you to ban you invite to a meeting with you, Bishop Williamson or a priest who does not or no longer part of the SSPX? By what authority can they forbid you to call Bishop Williamson to give the sacrament of confirmation to your children? By what right can they ask a friend you exclude religious of the Third Order? Etc..

To answer these questions, we would like to revisit an article that went unnoticed too: Only master on board, Bishop Fellay ... This article contains valuable remarks. The author finds a praxis revealing a theory that was underlying long but recently broke into the open. SSPX is taken if the Church at least for the 'lifeboat' and is misused as if it had an ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful forget what she taught in its infancy: Given the state of necessity, SSPX has a court substitute.

We would return here briefly the essential passages of this article, and add some comments.
Doctrinal decline

The year 2012 was marked by an apparent change in perspective. Before 2012, the SSPX formally exclude the possibility of a "reconciliation" with Rome before seeing reconnect with Traditional Magisterium. This position was based on the experience of over thirty years of relations with Rome. But in 2012, the General Chapter has explicitly acknowledged the possibility of a practical with current Roman authorities, without doctrinal agreement, as confirmed on 27 June 2013, the statement of the four bishops of the Fraternity least one agreement.

Father Jean Capuchin has highlighted the decline in the fight of faith:

"For years, the Archbishop to the coronation sought to discuss with Rome. [...] Archbishop Lefebvre were statements rather in the practical sense by saying let us do the experiment of Tradition. [...] And then he realized he was too far, he said, he acknowledged. May 5, when he signed the protocol. It was too far because it compromised on the issue of doctrine. He passed before the practice. [...] In the Fideliter No. 66 of December 88 on the cover it says: "On one occasion seminars, I ask my conditions. "That's what Archbishop Lefebvre said after the sacred and has always held until death and his legacy. [...] For years and years, this principle has been held. [...] Unfortunately, for some time, which may be after the end of the Roman discussed, that is to say the fall of 2011, little by little, we are obliged to note that the authorities of the Brotherhood abandoned this principle. "

Pastoral cure

Facing the congregation and clergy who dare to publicly express their opposition to this decline, deviant authorities demonstrate hardening, because as noted by Louis Veuillot: "there is no more sectarian than liberal"

One of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre was removed, many priests had to leave the Brotherhood, children were expelled from schools in the United States, the faithful were fired, others were threatened or actually deprived of the sacraments France, England, Poland, Mexico, Uruguay, Argentina, Italy, etc.. In France, a good thought prior to launch to the faithful: "If I hear that come to Mass people who criticize the Brotherhood throughout the week, I will not hesitate to deny the sacraments".

For the same reason, in June 2012, the ordinations of the Capuchins and the Dominicans were canceled. A priest who asked the reason, Bishop Fellay said: "It's a lack of self-confidence I felt vis-à-vis these communities ... and it's so serious to order a priest, that I ' I'd wait ... "(9 November 2012, Paris) To measure the grotesque and monstrous arbitrariness of this response, the faithful should know that the Capuchin deacons were retired with those of the Brotherhood when it was signified their refusal to Order. Now compare this reaction to Bishop Fellay community friends to the reaction of Archbishop Lefebvre facing the Roman pressure:

"You know that the nuncio came to ask that I did not make the ordinations, so of course I told him not to ten days ordinations we can do such a thing, it is not possible . I would even humanly speaking. These young priests worked for five years to prepare for ordination, and ten days after their ordination, while all parents are willing to come, while the first Masses are announced everywhere, it is at this time then they ask me not to ordinations. Ordinations are legitimate. These seminarians who have studied regularly, have a natural right to have the result of preparation they have done. "(COSPECSimon 32A)

Bishop Fellay had it right and moral for him doing so? Priests who deprive the faithful of sacraments or worried consciences are they entitled to?

A court locuм ...

The Compendium of the moral theology of St. Alphonsus Liguori says (T II, ​​§ 612, p 362.) "Censorship can not be brought against the infidels, or against the persons on whom it has no jurisdiction ". (By Father Joseph Frassinetti, prior of Santa Sabina in Genoa, Volumes I and II translated by Father P. Fourez, Bachelor of Theology, 1889)

Now we know that the conciliar Church denies any jurisdiction SSPX. The power of jurisdiction of Bishop Fellay is therefore not just the Vatican. Bishop Fellay and his priests have no "ordinary jurisdiction" but a "jurisdiction substitute" that is "a national emergency given the right to every bishop and every priest if necessary, for the good common, when it has not received from the authorities the necessary powers. "(Salt of the Earth No. 87, p. 139-140)

"It must be clear that a locuм authority does not have the same characteristics as the existing authority usually in the Church: it is carried out in each case, is not so usual, that is, say that those who benefit may withdraw, substitute and authority has no power to bring them back. It depends on the needs of the faithful since the crisis. This is the extent to which the faithful need these bishops or priests for the salvation of their souls, the Church authority creates this link between them. All this shows that the court substitute gives a delicate exercise limited authority. The judicial authority of the bishop from his appointment not a Roman, but the need for the salvation of souls, he must exercise with a special delicacy. "(Lefebvre note of 20 February 1991 quoted in Salt of the Earth No. 87, p. 142)

Archbishop Lefebvre during the Mass of Lille, in 1976, stated clearly: "They say I am the leader of the tradition. I'm not the leader of anything. "Think of having an ordinary court when she was only substitute is" basis for our apostolate on a false and illusory basis. "(From a letter of Archbishop Lefebvre cited by the Abbe Woodpecker in Des consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre ... A schism? Fideliter 1988, p. 55-60

Become a perverse domination ...

Today, everything happens as if the General House of the SSPX thought would align all the faithful and all religious institutions claiming Tradition on personal options.

The faithful are under no obligation to approve Bishop Fellay in his search for a personal prelature.  England, Italy, the faithful were asked (by phone!) Not set foot in chapels on the grounds of having made websites criticizing the new direction of Bishop Fellay ... Religious prohibited a gentleman serve Mass as he usually did in the chapel of the convent his crime have to attend Mass a priest 'resistant'.  The ORDO 2014, with its repertoire of traditional places of worship removed from its list the Benedictine monastery of Santa cruz (Nova Friburgo, Brazil). However, since the sacred, the theological position of the monastery had not changed. When eventually such tyranny?

The good of souls is not the purpose of the authority. The Brotherhood is out of the limits of the jurisdiction of substitution. It usurps a role she did not and this is not theft Church: it is sectarian.
Immoral authority

The change of course, came to light in 2012, put the Brotherhood beyond the limits of its legitimate power. Repression, exclusion and sanctions that soweth to the winds show a serious moral drift and certifies a autovalidante mentality, despotic, completely devoid of charity. In France, a prior addressed a knight of Our Lady of 86 years in a work meeting in the dependence of the priory by these words: "Get out." His crime: being against an agreement with Rome ...

"In controversial issues, preachers and confessors must be careful not to define a thing is sin, especially mortal sin, on the authority of theologians or even many theologians; such a decision requires the universal consent of the authors. Similarly, a confessor could not, without injustice, refuse absolution to a penitent decided to act contrary to one supported by one or more theological opinion, but challenged by other Catholic theologians. "(Frassinetti, Volume II, p. 27).

"As confessors have no authority to decide theological questions, I find as De Lugo and other authors quoted by St. Alphonsus, the penitent is obviously entitled to his opinion in practice, as long as this opinion is supported by good theological and has therefore a strong probability, at least extrinsic; and that, even though the penitent would be the most ignorant man in the world and that the opinion would seem absolutely false confessor. "(, Frassinetti, Volume II notes 141 448)

But many priests publicly express a theological point of view legitimate and argued contrary to that of Bishop Fellay: Williamson, former Director and former seminary professor Father Bernard Fellay, abbots Chazal, Pfeiffer, Girouard, Father John, Father Pierre-Marie ...

The pretext of the common good, the characterization of 'subversive' laid against contrary to Menzingen opinions have no value because the true common good never goes against the moral and when you want to change the sly purpose an organization, it is a little short to qualify as 'subversive' those who resist precisely this insidious subversion. In reality, the Brotherhood wants to expand his power. And it takes no account of the particularity of the court which is his. It feels right to decide everything inside the small world that are loyal and congregations attached to Tradition. Perpetuate the priesthood, keep the Holy Mass and the Doctrine of the Faith, bringing the sacraments are goals that are no longer sufficient to few. They dream to be a sort of super Diocese receiving the papal protection ...

One last fact to grasp how far can the vertigo of domination. On November 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay decided after returning to his commitment, 5 perpetually professed religious of the Dominican Avrillé who were outside the convent community must come together in a house to become a "second leg" to Steffeshausen.  Bishop Fellay named Bishop Galarreta top of this house.   Written to Bishop Fellay and Bishop Galarreta asking them to show "how such a procedure can be called according to Tradition, the right of religious and even natural law" letters went unanswered.

The attitude of these two bishops differs from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. Father Schmidberger in a letter dated 27 May 1991 addressed to the religious tradition recognized that Archbishop Lefebvre "was more Father, counselor, and friend authority in the legal sense" and that he "used to Archbishop Lefebvre as a authority substitute. "In 1991, it was obvious that" each community is absolutely free to apply or not to [Bishop Fellay]. Neither he nor the Brotherhood have the slightest intention of putting the hand on the other communities in any way whatsoever. Also he will always see its action the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, not ordinary ... "

In 1981, Archbishop Lefebvre solemnly protested that he would not be the "Master General" of the Order.  But in October 2012, to Bellaigue Bishop Galarreta said the father prior Avrillé he should consider Bishop Fellay as taking the place of the Master General of the Order.

Bishop Fellay and Bishop Galarreta therefore feel entitled to intervene directly in the religious life of a community. They can make out the subjects, give them exclaustration no time limit - regardless of canon law or constitutions of the institute - or allow them to stay out of the convent and to the apostolate, without any control without even prevent their lawful superiors. They can allow them to start a "new line". They can still maintain a secret correspondence with religious and encourage them to provide intelligence reports and to be wary of their lawful superiors.
As a result ...

How can we trust these bishops? What does the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X? Obedience without murmuring and a blind trust? But how demanding such a thing when we know that the top of this Fraternity as good approves his statement of 15 April 2012 which recognizes the current magisterium, the legitimacy of the Mass of Paul VI and the new gun law.

Not only is the new direction of the SSPX is not mandatory but it is dangerous and suicidal. It can therefore be criticized freely in private and in public. All censures leveled against those who want to continue the good fight of faith resisting rallying maneuvers are null and constitute an abuse of power. Censorship of Bishop Fellay to silence his political opponents are more sins that cause a scandal to the faith. By dint of frequent modern, the General House grabbed the Roman vice subversion.

"It is B. A. ba Modernism bend the faithful blackmail virtue and love of God, and the abolition, in the name of virtue, indispensable means of education and conservation. Modernism operates victims in the name of obedience, through the pride of suspicion on any critical reforms in the name of respect for the Pope on behalf of missionary zeal, charity and unity. "(Father Calmel, Letter dated 8 August 1973)

I vaguely remember Father Pfeiffer mentioning that when most of the religious of a religious community in France came over to the resistance, +Fellay opened another one with the same name in Belgium to accommodate the ones that did not come over to the Resistance. I think it was the Dominicans, but I am not 100% sure (poor memory). Maybe someone else can confirm or deny this.

Yes, that sounds about right - at least generally speaking.  I think that is what the article above is referring to here, though it is not totally clear from the google translation.  (And a lot of times, it seems these French articles assume some prior knowledge.):

One last fact to grasp how far can the vertigo of domination. On November 13, 2013, Bishop Fellay decided after returning to his commitment, 5 perpetually professed religious of the Dominican Avrillé who were outside the convent community must come together in a house to become a "second leg" to Steffeshausen.  Bishop Fellay named Bishop Galarreta top of this house.  Written to Bishop Fellay and Bishop Galarreta asking them to show "how such a procedure can be called according to Tradition, the right of religious and even natural law" letters went unanswered.

The "5 perpetually professed religious of the Dominican Avrillé" were already "outside the convent community" for quite some time, as I understand it, because they disagree with the hard-line stance of the Dominicans.  The SSPX opened a house in Belgium for them.  Initially, Bp. Fellay was said to have promised Father Prior of Avrillé that it would be under the umbrella of the Dominicans - can't recall exactly; there was an article somewhere on La Sapinière or Non Possumus or somewhere about this, but I can't find it right now - but it was something like they promised that the Dominicans would choose the prior of the new monastery, or something like that, but then reneged on the promise.  As it says in the above article, "Bishop Fellay named Bishop Galarreta top of this house."  How can a bishop of a separate priestly fraternity be the head of a house of Dominican religious?  

[And I am guessing that this:  "Written to Bishop Fellay and Bishop Galarreta asking them to show "how such a procedure can be called according to Tradition, the right of religious and even natural law" letters went unanswered." refers to Father Prior writing to them.]

I am no expert on the Dominican rule, or canon law with respect to religious orders, but from what I understand, Menzingen (and the 5 renegade monks) are violating such rules right and left.  Also, I think that much of this has been in the works for quite some time; i.e. if you think of the Dominicans having "come over to the resistance" by that January docuмent, obviously all the happenings referred to above have been going on for a while.  (And may have been part of the incentive to sign that January docuмent.)  I think the 5 monks have not been in Avrillé for quite a while.  Although I stand to be corrected on all of this - "(poor memory)" too!   :geezer:

Hopefully someone closer to the situation can clarify things.