Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX  (Read 20227 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 612
  • Reputation: +607/-52
  • Gender: Male
Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
« Reply #45 on: March 03, 2019, 03:13:47 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • #45: Contradiction (Pflugerian Forgetfulness Continued):

    In the previous post, we demonstrated that Fr. Pfluger's contention that, "None of us, amongst the superiors, could have imagined in 2006 that...the Pope would declare that the “old Mass” was never abrogated, that it had its place within the Church" was confusing, in light of the Cor Unum #85 (October - 2006), in which Bishop Fellay spoke of an "imminent arrival of a motu proprio which would replace that of 1988 so as to give more freedom to the Mass, an equal right to the new Mass."

    But the careful reader may have noticed the use of ellipses (...) in the Fr. Pfluger quote.  

    What was edited/omitted in my presentation of the Fr. Pfluger quote?

    Here is the full quote (with the omitted words bolded):

    "None of us, amongst the superiors, could have imagined in 2006 that the Holy See would remove the 1988 decree of excommunications and that by a Motu proprio, the Pope would declare that the “old Mass” was never abrogated, that it had its place within the Church.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150319210654/http://dergeradeweg.com/2015/02/17/interivew-with-father-niklaus-pfluger-on-the-challenges-of-our-time-english-edition-the-straight-path/

    Was the phrase in question omitted because, at least as regards the "excommunications," Fr. Pfluger was being accurate?  

    In 2006, was it true that the superiors of the SSPX had really never seen the revocation of the "excommunications" coming?

    Hardly.

    On January 31, 2009 Bishop Fellay told the French Monde et Vie:

    "I expected it since 2005, after the first letter requesting the lifting of the excommunication which I had sent at the request of Rome itself.  Because it is clear that Rome did not ask for this letter in order to refuse to lift the excommunication."
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-fellay-interview-division-will-be.html

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #46 on: March 04, 2019, 12:27:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #46: Change (Fr. Fahey Gets Zapped):

    In 2009, following in the wake of Bishop Williamson's "holocaust interview," the SSPX went into worldwide damage control mode: Many books touching upon the "Jewish question" were removed from chapel bookstore shelves; SSPX websites were quickly filtered and expurgated for content (particularly for anything authored by Fr. Denis Fahey, who had been the standard bearer for the Kingship of Christ in SSPX circles for decades); and the works of Fr. Denis Fahey in SSPX publishing houses suddenly were "out of stock" (never to be replenished).

    Today, were a Catholic to go to the Angelus Press website seeking the magnificent works of Fr. Denis Fahey, they would only find a couple "Out of Stock" notices (as in long out of stock), such as this one:
    https://angeluspress.org/collections/vendors?q=Fr.%20Denis%20Fahey

    But I could find nothing that was "in stock," even though all of Fr. Fahey's works are readily available from other publishers such as Loreto and elsewhere.
    http://loretopubs.org/fr.-denis-fahey-complete-set.html

    And were one to scour the SSPX.org articles index for something from Fr. Fahey, they will come up empty.  In fact, the only article on the subject of the Jews which I could find there, by any author, was this one:
    http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/judaism_and_church_before_and_after_vatican_ii_vennari-1-11-2013/judaism_and_church_before_and_after_vatican_ii_vennari-1-11-2013.htm

    (See this link - search for yourself) http://sspx.org/en/articles-index

    Broadening my search worldwide, I found another article on (but not by) Fr. Fahey on the SSPX/Asia website, here:
    https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Sermons/Fr-Denis-Fahey-and-Vatican-Secret-Society.htm

    At the end of this 3rd party biography of Fr. Fahey are recommended three of his books, but there are no links to them, as one might formerly have expected.

    And supposing I have missed a book available here, or an article still posted there, the very least that can be said is that the SSPX has severely curtailed its media material regarding the Jews in its quest for canonical "regularization."  

    It no longer matters that the works of Fr. Denis Fahey expound better than almost any other the full social doctrine of Christ the King, and were (and still are) powerful tools for making converts to Tradition, such as Bishop Salvador Lazo (who explicitly attributed his conversion in part to the works of Fr. Fahey, stating):

    "Reading these books gave me a better idea of the crisis and confusion in the Church today. It became clear to me who are the real enemies of the Catholic Church. Fr. Denis Fahey pinpointed them when he wrote: "The enemies of the Catholic Church are three. One invisible, Satan, and two visible:

    Talmudic Judaism
    That Judaism is the visible chief enemy of the Catholic Church, is evident from the Church history, from words and deeds of individuals, and groups and the teachings of the Talmud of which the Kabalah constitute the basis of Judaism."

    But the SSPX realizes Judaism has a tight grip over the Vatican, and the latter cannot accept to "regularize" a group perceived as anti-semitic.  So Fr. Fahey had to go.  

    Moreover, Fr. Fahey's works represent a direct challenge and rejection to Nostrsa Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae at a time when the SSPX is going soft in these areas, as proven by Bishop Fellay's "Conflict Zone" interview with Tim Sebastian, or his earlier cited comments regarding Vatican II's religious liberty being "very limited."



    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #47 on: March 04, 2019, 09:51:56 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • #47: Change (Worldliness):

    Sometimes, no words are necessary:































    PS: I was going to finish by posting the 2013 pic of the Sanford, FL priests riding roller coasters at an amusement park, but it looks like it was memory-holed as well:

    The story was posted on Cathinfo here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-going-to-mainstream-recreation-parks!/

    And the link to the pics was here (but no more): http://sspx.org/chapel_news/sanford_fl_3-8-2013/sanford_fl_3-8-2013.htm



    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #48 on: March 05, 2019, 10:25:35 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #48: Change (More Worldliness):

    “In order never to be guilty of any unedifying act, the priest must regulate his actions, his movements and his habits in harmony with the sublimity of his vocation. He who on the altar almost ceases to be mortal and takes on a divine form, remains always the same, even when he comes down from the holy hill and leaves the temple of the Lord. Wherever he is, wherever he goes, he never ceases to be a priest, and the serious reasons that compel him always to be grave and appropriate accompany him with his dignity everywhere.

    “Hence he must have that gravity that will ensure that his words, his bearing, and his way of working arouse love, win authority and excite reverence. For, the very reasons that oblige him to be holy make it a duty for him to show it by his outward acts in order to edify all those with whom he is obliged to come into contact. A composed and dignified exterior is a powerful eloquence which wins souls in a much more efficacious manner than persuasive sermons. Nothing inspires greater confidence than an ecclesiastic who, never forgetting the dignity of his state, demonstrates in every situation that gravity which attracts and wins universal homage.

    “If, on the contrary, he forgets the holiness of the sacred character which he bears indelibly impressed and engraved on his soul, and if he fails to show in his outward conduct a gravity superior to that of certain men of the world, then he causes his ministry and religion itself to be despised. For when gravity is wanting in its leaders, the people lose respect and veneration for them.”

    -Pope St. Pius X
    Recipe for Holiness: St. Pius X and the Priest, (Lumen Christi Press, Houston: 1970), “Dignity and Propriety,” pp. 81-2.




    The SSPX goes to Sea World...for Lent (Does the priest furthest to the left look familiar?):





    When visitors, and especially priests, come to one of our houses, they have to sense an atmosphere of gaiety, of simplicity, of concord; of firm attachment to the truth, but also goodness, charity, indulgence, openness of heart toward those who come to visit, in order to bring them closer to our Lord.

    -Priestly Holiness by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre








    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #49 on: March 05, 2019, 01:54:06 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • #49: Contradiction (On the Use of Satire):

    In 2017, some anonymous Romans plastered 200 posters around the city which satirized Pope Francis's war against Tradition, saying:

    "Ah, Franky [referring to Pope Francis using a Roman dialect form of Francis which suggests great familiarity], you’ve put Congregations under supervision, removed priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate and ignored Cardinals… But where in all this is your compassion?”
    https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-7-2017-posters-pope/

    Indignant, the SSPX lept to the Pope's defense, denouncing the use of satire as an acceptable means of combating the crisis in the Church and Rome:

    "And again, we could laugh too - if the subject was not so dramatic, if the person and function of the Pope were not involved, and if all this was not an expression of the chaos in Rome.
    Is This a Proper Way to Combat the Crisis in the Church?  Further, and as we have touched on before, we cannot support this passive-aggressive and disrespectful method of "correcting" the Sovereign Pontiff.
    https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/satire-new-way-combat-the-crisis

    But is it true?

    Is satire really an unacceptable means of combating Roman (and papal) modernism?

    Archbishop Lefebvre sure didn't think so.

    At the time of the Assisi event, the Archbishop personally sent these two satirical cartoons to Pope John Paul II, with the following words:

    "Holy Father,

    Be so good as to meditate on these two pictures, since you are deaf to the anguished appeals which we have filially addressed to you. Deign at least not to offend gravely and in public against God's First Commandment: the salvation of your soul is at stake! Preach Jesus Christ, as did the Apostles, even at the cost of their lives. That is the fervent and filial wish of those who still remain Catholic.

    Marcel Lefebvre,

    Bishop Emeritus of Tulle."

    (-Williamson, Bishop Richard N.  Letters from the Rector, #41 and #42)



    Obviously, if the use of satire with regard to the person of the Pope was acceptable to Archbishop Lefebvre, but not to Bishop Fellay, then this is but yet another contradiction between the old SSPX and neo-SSPX.


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #50 on: March 05, 2019, 06:08:21 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • #50: Contradiction (Jewish Deicide):

    In December of 2013, Fr. Christian Bouchacourt (then SSPX South American District Superior) gave an interview to the Spanish-language newspaper Clarín (the largest newspaper in Argentina) on the subject of the Jews.

    At a certain point, this exchange transpired:

    Clarín: Do you defend deicide, which imputed to the Jews the death of Jesus, as was the vision of the Holy See before the Council?

    Fr. Bouchacourt: The Jewish people did not commit deicide.  
    https://www.clarin.com/edicion-impresa/fraternidad-san-pio-catolicos-francisco_0_BkiN5objP7e.html

    Notice that even the reporter knew that the charge of deicide was the traditional Catholic position.

    But it wasn't so long ago that the SSPX adhered to that same position, and though you would have a difficult time knowing it today by searching their websites (i.e., because of the purging of Jewish content mentioned in post #46), not even two years before Fr. Bouchacourt's denial, the SSPX had published an indignant rebuttal to what it called Pope Benedict XVI's "sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ in his new book, the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth."

    That article, long since purged (and formerly available here: http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/gesture_to_jews_from_benedict_pope_or_professor.htm), was ironically salvaged by an anti-Traditional, pro-Jewish blog, and shows quite succinctly what the SSPX used to teach on the matter:

    "The responsibility of the Jewish people as such for the death of Christ has been the constant teaching of the Magisterium, based on Scripture and the Church Fathers. St. John speaks three times in his Prologue of the rejection of Christ by His own (meaning His own people or nation). Romans XII speaks of the rejection of Israel for the profit of the Gentiles. See also St. Augustine’s Treatise 49 On John, near the end: “The chief priests and the Pharisees took counsel together...’If we let Him alone as He is, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’ Fearing the destruction of temporal things, they took no thought of eternal life, and so they lost both. After the Lord’s Passion and glorification the Romans did indeed take away both their place and their nation, by assault on the city and dispersal of the people.” The Fathers connected the punishment of the loss of the nation to the crime of deicide, perpetrated by the highest ranking political and moral authority: the Sanhedrin."
    https://jhate.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/gesture-to-the-jews-from-benedict.pdf

    Yet the SSPX wants you to believe there have been no changes, contradictions, or compromises?

    "We have always been at war with Eurasia!"

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #51 on: March 06, 2019, 05:25:37 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • #51: Contradiction ("Saint" Faustina and the Divine Mercy Devotion):

    It used to be that the SSPX uniformly rejected the practice of inculcating and/or promoting novel and questionable conciliar devotions attributed to dubiously "canonized" saints, and the "Divine Mercy" devotion of Sr. Faustina Kawalski was no exception.

    In an excellent 2010 article, Fr. Peter Scott (former US District Superior) took aim at the Divine Mercy devotion, noting that it was:

    "Condemned by the Holy Office.  There were two decrees from Rome on this question, both of the time of Pope John XXIII. The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, in a plenary meeting held on November 19, 1958, made the following decisions: The supernatural nature of the revelations made to Sister Faustina is not evident.  No feast of Divine Mercy is to be instituted.  It is forbidden to divulge images and writings that propagate this devotion under the form received by Sister Faustina.

    The second decree of the Holy Office was on March 6, 1959, in which the following was established:  The diffusion of images and writings promoting the devotion to Divine Mercy under the form proposed by the same Sister Faustina was forbidden.  The prudence of the bishops is to judge as to the removal of the aforesaid images that are already displayed for public honor."
    http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?article_id=2895§ion=articles&subsection=show_article

    It was not until the Polish Pope lifted the censure upon the works of Sr. Faustina in 1978 that this devotion was "rehabilitated" in and for the conciliar church.

    That fact, along with the pride and presumption Fr. Scott notes in Sr. Faustina's Diary, sufficed for SSPXers (clergy and lay) to steer clear of this new devotion.

    How surprising it was, then, to see this devotion creeping into the SSPX during the post-2012 years of SSPX ralliement (or, perhaps not).

    On 6/26/15, the Spanish language resistance blog (Non Possumus) published an article titled "The Neo-FSSPX and its Double Face II," from which the material below is excerpted:
    https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2015/06/la-neo-fsspx-y-su-doble-cara-ii.html



    "Did you know that the neo-FSSPX, in some of its official sites, promotes devotion to Faustina Kowalska:

    The Facebook of the Neo-FSSPX of Poland publishes phrases from the "Diary" of Sister Faustina:





    The weekly St. Mary's newsletter of December 7, 2014, includes "Saint" Faustina among the "Relics for Advent until the Christmas season":



    And in the catalog 2010-2011 of the "Editorial Sarto", of the District of Germany, there are two books of Sister Faustina for sale (one is her "Diary"):




    These few examples, taken from official SSPX websites, publishing houses, and newsletters suffice to illustrate a disturbing new openness to conciliar "saints" and devotions which stands in sharp contrast to the prudent spirit which animated Fr. Scott's article.

    But if you are going to join the conciliar church, you must not reject its "saints" and devotions.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #52 on: March 06, 2019, 07:12:54 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • #52: Change (Modernist Books for Sale):

    In post #50, we referenced a (since deleted) article from SSPX.org denouncing what it termed Pope Benedict XVI's "sweeping exoneration of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus Christ in his new book, the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth."

    Yet, quite incoherently, here was that same book (Jesus of Nazareth) being promoted by the SSPX German District's "Editorial Sarto," in addition to several other modernist works and authors (even one by arch-modernist, Hans Urs von Balthasar):




    But that is not all. Did you know that this catalog also offers the following modernist works for sale:



    "Jesus of Nazareth", by Benedict XVI



    "The Spirit of the Liturgy", by  Benedict XVI





    "Reflections on the Priesthood", by Benedict XVI

    "Luz y Sombra", by  Card. Walter Brandmuller

    "Dominus est", by  Mons. Athanasius Schneider

    And that they not only include these books by modernist "conservative" authors, but also sell "extreme" modernist works?
    "Basic works of three great women of Helfta", by  Hans Urs von Balthasar  - Margot Schmidt

    And it also draws attention to the fact that, in the Editorial Sarto, the "Saint" has [been] removed the authors canonized by the Church, according to modernist usage:







    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #53 on: March 07, 2019, 06:20:33 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • #53: Contradiction (Modesty in Dress):

    On 6/21/15,  SSPX.org published a great article in "The Pastor's Corner" titled "How Catholics Ought to Dress," which included among many other timely reminders, this statement:

    "An even further consideration for men and women is to dress properly according to their nature, or respectively, according to their masculinity or femininity. For men, this means they should not wear tight-fitting clothes or in general, go shirtless in public (especially for fathers, even around the home in front of their children).

    For the ladies, to dress like a man (such as wearing pants) is improper and contradicts a woman’s God-given femininity. That this is not merely an “old fuddy duddy’s” quibble, should be evident when we realize that the proponents of unisex clothing have also been the same “gender theory” people behind the promotion of sins against nature.

    It is interesting to note that the “Lion of Campos”, Bishop de Castro Mayer, once famously remarked in a pastoral letter that he would prefer a woman to wear a mini-skirt rather than pants. For while the mini-skirt was immodest, it was at least feminine, while pants contradicted a woman’s nature (thus the former attacked the senses, while the latter warped the intellect).

    Therefore, so-called “woman’s pants” (usually worn out of pleasure or commodity) are not the proper garb of a Catholic (or Marian-like) girl or lady, either in the parish, domestic or social life."
    https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/how-catholics-ought-dress-2203
    [NB: It appears access to the link above is denied.  However, the entire article is also available here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/how-catholics-ought-to-dress-(email-from-sspx)/]

    However, just yesterday, in a post titled “Another Look Inside Operations of the Regina Coeli House - Assistant Priests & Staff,” the very same district office which less than four years prior published the above letter included a picture of its office staff:


    https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/another-look-inside-operations-regina-coeli-house-assistant-priests-staff-45732

    With every single female employee unanimously flaunting the Church’s (and SSPX's) own moral norms for modesty in dress (i.e., they are all wearing pants), the message sent is unmistakable:

    Either the SSPX no longer endorses traditional norms for modesty, or, they have no wish to be taken seriously when they do.

    MODERATOR POSTSCRIPT 3/13/19:
    The SSPX just edited the picture, so that it conveniently cuts off before showing that all the women wear pants. I have added the "after" photo to this post as an attachment. This is why every website article, photo, etc. referenced in this CCCC thread has to be archived: the SSPX isn't above changing or deleting embarrassing data "down the memory hole" Ministry of Truth style when their cause requires it. 

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #54 on: March 07, 2019, 05:03:28 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • #54: Contradiction: (A Slip of the Lip?):

    On October 24, 2012 the General House of the SSPX issued a communique announcing not merely the expulsion of Bishop Williamson, but also stating the reason for the expulsion:

    "Bishop Richard Williamson, having distanced himself from the management and the government of the SSPX for several years, and refusing to show due respect and obedience to his lawful superiors, was declared excluded from the SSPX by decision of the Superior General and its Council, on October 4th, 2012. A final deadline had been granted to him to declare his submission, after which he announced the publication of an “open letter” asking the Superior General to resign."
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/sspx-williamson-removed.html

    We covered this in post #40, so why is it getting mention again?

    Because on March 19, 2015 (i.e., the day of the episcopal consecration of Bishop Jean Michel Faure by Bishop Williamson), Menzingen issued another communique designed to please its Roman handlers in which it gave a completely different reason for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson (and we might add, that which is most likely the true reason):

    "Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre."
    https://sspx.org/en/consecration-of-fr-jean-michel-faure

    It doesn't matter for our present purposes that this latter/true reason for the expulsion of Bishop Williamson is a caricature of Bishop Williamson's posture vis-a-vis Rome (i.e., He opposed relations aimed at obtaining a practical accord with unconverted Rome, but not as regards a willingness to help them convert back to Tradition, should they ever want to do so).  What does matter, is that it corroborates the indiscreet admission of SSPX German District spokesman, Fr. Andreas Steiner, that, "The decision [to expel Bishop Williamson] will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]."
    https://religion.orf.at/stories/2555877/

    The minions of Menzingen had insisted for three years that the expulsion of Bishop Williamson had nothing to do with the elimination of an obstacle standing in the way of a practical accord, but was instead (as the 10/24/12 communique stated) purely and simply a matter of disobedience.  

    But anxious to show their Roman handlers how "different" they had become from the old SSPX "Williamsonites," particularly as regards their newfound respect for authority, the Society issued that strident denunciation, and in the course of doing so, unwittingly showed their true motivations.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #55 on: March 07, 2019, 10:43:34 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • #55: Contradiction (SSPX Denounces the Episcopal Consecration of Bishop Faure):

    On March 19, 2015 Bishop Williamson consecrated Jean Michel Faure bishop at the Holy Cross Monastery in New Fribourg, Brazil.  

    That same day, the SSPX media machine went into high gear trying to distinguish between Bishop Faure's episcopal consecration and those of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.

    Surely they were troubled by the thought of the parallels so evident to the clergy and faithful of the SSPX and Resistance, and in an attempt to limit the damage, published articles trying to distinguish between the two.

    The first one was a communique of the General House on 3/19/15, in which it was alleged that:

    "In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly indicated his intention to consecrate auxiliary bishops who would have no jurisdiction, because of the state of necessity in which the Society of St. Pius X and faithful Catholics found themselves at that time."
    https://sspx.org/en/consecration-of-fr-jean-michel-faure

    But informed readers must have been quite perplexed to see this fact alleged as a distinction between the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, since in the reading of the Mandatum Apostolicum, Bishop Williamson clearly stated that:

    "By this handing down of the episcopal power of Orders, no episcopal power of jurisdiction is assumed or granted..."
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/official-statement-by-bishop-williamson-regarding-consecration/

    In fact, if one compares the Mandatum Apostolicum of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 with that of Bishop Williamson in 2015, he will note that the first couple paragraphs are nearly identical.  The only real difference is the addition of a 3rd paragraph by Bishop Williamson explaining that the liberalized SSPX will not be an option to obtain a bishop for Tradition.  
    (See Archbishop Lefebvre's mandate here: https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/1988-06-30B.htm)

    The SSPX article continued:

    "After having done everything conceivable to gain permission from the Holy See, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded with the solemn consecrations on June 30, 1988..."

    But in arguing along these lines, the SSPX makes a twofold self-condemnation:

    Firstly, the SSPX made no attempt whatsoever to secure the permission of modernist Rome in 1991, when three of its bishops consecrated Licinio Rangel to the episcopate following upon the death of Bishop Castro de Mayer.  Therefore, if Bishop Williamson's actions were odious in 2015 for making no attempt to secure the permission of Rome, then so were the SSPX's actions in 1991.

    Secondly, the reason why the SSPX never approached Rome regarding the 1991 consecration of Licinio Rangel is because, as it used to teach, the Pope would have said "no," but such refusal would not have relieved them of their duty to come to the aid of souls trapped in necessity, so there's no point in asking:

    "But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circumstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circumstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls."
    https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

    And:

    "The state of necessity in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre is precisely the case in which the lawmaker cannot impose the application of the law because it has become, by force of particular circumstances, contrary to the common good and to the divine natural and positive law. On his part, under the pressure of a precept of divine natural and positive law, “…the subject [e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre – Ed.] not only may, but he is bound not to observe the law, whether he asks or does not ask for permission to do so from the superior.”

    Regarding seeking permissions from the superior, Suarez explains (speaking precisely of the pope) that here, “it is not a question of interpreting the will of the superior, but [a question] of his power” in order to know what is not necessary to ask the superior, because it is permitted to make use of “doctrinal rules” or “principles of theology and law,” given that “one knows with more certitude the power [of the superior] which is not free, rather than his will, which is free [emphasis added].” For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circumstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that is “beyond the power of legislator” to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,” he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,” “by his own judgment.” Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,” that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is: that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission."
    https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm

    Which is all another way of saying that in 1988, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, he hoped until the last minute that there might be a bit of loyalty shown by Rome, but to no avail.  By 1991 at the time of the Bishop Rangel consecration, there was no point in asking permission any longer, since there was no doubt as to Rome's refusal (a refusal which nevertheless, was powerless to relieve the bishops of their grave duty to souls trapped in necessity).  Therefore, it would be impertinent to ask permission for what must be done in any case.

    Now, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander:"

    If the passages above justified the SSPX in 1991, then it is incomprehensible how they do not justify Bishop Williamson in 2015.

    For the SSPX to condemn the consecration of Bishop Faure, then, is to serve as a self-indictment.

    And if the example of the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel must be admitted as a righteous deed (and it was), then this nugatory difference between the 1988 and 1991/2015 consecrations must be dismissed as lacking substance, which in turn leaves the 1988 and 2015 episcopal consecrations practically identical:

    -They both featured practically the same Apostolic Mandate;

    -They both based themselves on the state of necessity;

    -They both explicitly announced the withholding of any apostolic mission (i.e., jurisdiction);

    -And they both took place from a desire to provide for Tradition.


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #56 on: March 08, 2019, 03:15:01 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • #56: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Regarding a Deal With Pope Francis):

    From the Avrillé Dominicans, Letter n° 87 (May 13, 2014):

    "In the April-May [2014] issue no. 88 of Le Rocher, (the bulletin of the SSPX Swiss District), on the question of an eventual agreement with Rome, Bishop Fellay responded: “Right now [that is, under Pope Francis], that would be foolish.

    But...

    "Nevertheless, despite these remarks, Bishop Fellay announced at the same time to the seminarians at Zaitzkoffen, Germany, that if Rome itself agreed to a recognition of the Society, he could not see why he should refuse it."

    https://cor-mariae.com/threads/avrille-dominicans-call-out-the-leaders-of-the-sspx.3524/

    We believe contradictions such as this one are well represented by this picture of His Excellency:



    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #57 on: March 09, 2019, 06:56:48 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #57: Contradiction (Bishop Fellay Saying Everything and its Opposite Regarding a Deal with Rome):

    In 2001, Cardinal Hoyos informs us that Bishop Fellay was open, already at that time, to the possibility of a practical accord for the SSPX, noting only that doing so might cause some internal problems, but not opposing such a solution in principle:

    "After these events, in noting your good will and based on the fact that your Fraternity certainly was not spreading any heretical doctrine and did not maintain schismatic attitudes, I had dared you to propose, without consulting anyone first, to set a possible date for reintegration. I suggested as a possible date the Solemnity of Easter 2001, and Your Excellency, although surprised, did not exclude this possibility, while expressing in any case that, probably, at the center of the Society of St. Pius X a few problems would arise."
    https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4650

    But confronted with the intervention of Bishop Williamson and the Dominicans of Avrille, Bishop Fellay hit the brakes, and by 2003, while secretly considering how to avert those obstacles (as his prior sponsorship of SSPX participation in the GREC unequivocally demonstrates), was saying the opposite in Letter #63 while he bided his time:

    "In the eyes of Rome, the Campos-Rome agreement was merely meant to be the prelude to our own “regularization” in the Society of Saint Pius X, but in our eyes what is happening to our former friends should rather serve as a lesson to us.  Generally speaking, Rome means, all things being equal, to come to an agreement with the SSPX...The day will come, we are sure and certain, when Rome will come back to Rome’s own Tradition and restore it to its rightful place, and we long with all our hearts for that blessed day. For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point, and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos."
    http://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/january-2003-superior-generals-letter-63-798

    But then the alleged fulfillment of the two preconditions for doctrinal discussions was supposed to have evinced a new desire for Tradition in Rome, and consequently, by March - 2012, Bishop Fellay wanted you to believe that the SSPX must rethink its former resistance to a merely practical accord.  After all, the SSPX needed to help Rome convert the Church back to Tradition:

    "The situation of the Church may require us to take prudent measures related and relevant to the specific situation. The General Chapter of 2006 issued a clear course of action in regard to our situation with Rome. We give priority to faith without searching our side a practical solution to resolve the issue BEFORE doctrinal.
    This is not a principle but a line of conduct which must govern our actions. We're here in front of reasoning in which the major premise is the affirmation of the principle of the primacy of faith to remain Catholic. The minor premise is a historical observation on the current situation of the Church and the practical conclusion is based on the virtue of prudence governing human action, nothing to seek agreement to the detriment of the faith. In 2006, the heresies continue to emerge, the same authorities and spread the modern spirit of Vatican II modernist and imposed on all like a steamroller (is the minor premise). It is impossible to reach a workable agreement unless authorities become, otherwise we would be crushed, shredded, destroyed or subjected to such strong pressure that we could not resist ('s the conclusion).

    If the minor premise changed, ie if there is a change in the situation of the Church in relation to the Tradition, this could lead to a corresponding change in the conclusion, that our principles have not changed at all! As Providence is expressed through the reality of the facts, to know His will, we must follow closely the reality of the Church, observing, examining what happens.

    But there is no doubt that since 2006, we are witnessing a development in the Church...It maybe in Rome where these things are more obvious! We now have friendly contacts in the departments most important, also among those closest to the Pope!

    Our perception of the situation is such that we believe that the efforts of the hierarchy can not stop aging over this movement birthplace she wants and expects even vaguely - the restoration of the Church.  If this is true, and that's for sure, it demands of us a new position in relation to the official Church."
    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/cor-unum-march-2012-bishop-fellay-to-sspx-members/

    But this announced willingness to overturn the position of the 2006 General Chapter, thereby departing from Archbishop Lefebvre's post-consecratory posture vis-a-vis unconverted Rome, had ignited the furor which spawned the Resistance, and faced with growing opposition, Bishop Fellay had to retreat, declaring only one year later:

    "Here we are then, at Easter 2013, and the situation in the Church remains almost unchanged. The words of Archbishop Lefebvre take on a prophetic tone. It has all come to pass, and it all continues for the greater misfortune of souls who no longer hear from their pastors the message of salvation."
    https://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2013-superior-generals-letter-80-1856

    But viewed historically, one sees clearly all these contradictions were really nothing other than taking "two steps forward, and one step back:"

    When necessary, Bishop Fellay would assume a traditional posture ad infra to reassure the clergy and faithful, while retaining his reconciliationist policy toward Rome ad extra as he marched steadily and relentlessly toward a recognition by unconverted Rome.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #58 on: March 09, 2019, 03:49:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #58: Contradiction ("Discreet, but not secret?"):

    In October/2010, DICI staged a brief interview with former First Assistance to the Superior General, Fr. Niclaus Pfluger on the subject of possible SSPX compromises in its relations with conciliar Rome.  In response to the question, "Some have accused the SSPX of working towards a compromise. Do you see reasons for such fears?" Fr. Pfluger responded:

    "The SSPX does not compromise; Bishop Fellay has no secret plan, strategy, or policy regarding the Faith in dealing with Rome."
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/10/return-to-orthodoxy-true-reformation-is.html

    Compare that statement with information contained in GREC kingpin Fr. Michel LeLong's 2011 book "The Necessary Reconciliation," which documents not only the history, goals, and progress of the GREC, but also the SSPX's part in it.  

    As described in the review by Dom Curzio Nitoglia:

    "The “White Father”, ordained priest in 1948, recounts the history of the dialogues held by the “Groupe de Reflexion Entre Catholiques" (Group for Reflection between Catholics) (GREC), with certain leading members of the Society of Saint Pius X, dialogues which he defines as “discrete, but not secret” (p.29), with the view to a full agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican; this after having accepted the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition, or the Hermeneutic of Continuity, and having received the freeing of the Traditional Mass, the lifting of the excommunications and full canonical systematization."

    And:

    "He, along with other leading traditionalists brought together in GREC, has sought to bring forward this dialogue that he calls ‘more charitable and diplomatic than it is doctrinal’ (pp.21-2), in order to arrive at an agreement as to the compatibility between Vatican II and Tradition."

    And:

    "Father Lelong relates of how at the start of 1996, he became acquainted with certain leading figures in the SSPX. Before all, he refers to Don Emmanuel du Chalard of the Priory at Albano Laziale (p.24) who ‘has never ceased to offer his support to GREC, just as precious as it is discrete’ (p.24), and in 1997 with Father Alain Lorans, ex Director of the SSPX Seminary at Econe, then of the Institute of Saint Pius X in Paris and finally, Editor of the SSPX’s official publication DICI (p.24). The meetings took place at the home of Hugette Perol at Rue de Rome in Paris; they were attended above all by Mrs Perol, Fr. Lelong, Fr Lorans who accounted for them to the SSPX Superior General (p.29), and Father Olivier de La Brosse, a Dominican who later became the official spokesman for the French Episcopal Conferences (pp. 24 & 25)."

    Finally:

    "In early 2000, the highest Vatican authorities came to be informed of these GREC meetings – never secret, no longer discrete and by now completely public (p.29) – and amongst these the names of the Nunzio Apostolico of Paris and the President of the French Episcopal Conferences stand out (p.29).
    Huguette Perol, Fr. Lorans and Fr. Lelong were received by many Vatican authorities (pp. 30 & 31). Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was notified about them (p. 48, as was Cardinal State Secretary Angelo Sodano (pp. 42-3).
    https://doncurzionitoglia.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/698/

    Note that Fr. LeLong is persistent in distinguishing between "secret" and "discrete."  

    In this context, the distinction is largely illusory: If I tell you to "keep the meeting secret" vs telling you to "be discrete about who you tell," the effect of either is the same: Do not publicize these meetings; keep them hidden from the public view.  And unless you were one of the liberal insiders working for a practical accord (all the while paying lip service about there being no practical accord before the doctrinal issues are resolved), you knew nothing about the existence of the GREC, its aims, players, or status of their machinations.

    It was S-E-C-R-E-T, and Fr. LeLong's insistence upon classifying these dialogues as "discrete but not secret" is most likely made with a view toward gaining history's favorable perception regarding these initially back-door meetings (i.e., "secret" is negative and masonic; "discrete" is "prudent" and "Catholic").

    Who can forget the sermon of Fr. Jean de Morgon, which broke the news of the existence of the GREC to the world, and who was so shook up by his discovery that he felt his own life might be endangered for having revealed the plot:

    "I expect to be cast into the street, being labeled “sede-vacantist” (defamation is a classical tactic of the subversives to marginalize their opponents). If some tragedy will happen to me - it is necessary to foresee everything - I have confided this letter and all my hot documents to some dependable friends, who can disseminate them should the need arise. I know that my parents will provide for me and help me to re-start or, better said, to continue my religious life somewhere else. It is an enormous pain for me to become “vagus”, but if this is the will of the Good God in this astonishing crisis, so be it! I have no trust in Bishop Fellay, who uses his authority to cover this whole operation."
    https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f031ht_LetterFrJean.htm

    Let us now return to the quote by Fr. Pfluger:

    "The SSPX does not compromise; Bishop Fellay has no secret plan, strategy, or policy regarding the Faith in dealing with Rome."

    We leave it to the reader to judge of the veracity of such a statement.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX
    « Reply #59 on: March 09, 2019, 05:12:01 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • #59: Contradiction ("Abnormal" Canonical Status: Fr. Pfluger vs Bishop Tissier de Mallerais):

    In October-2012, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger gave an interview to Kirchliche Umschau regarding the situation of the SSPX, in which he made the following comment:

    "There is no denying the obligation to take an active part in overcoming the crisis. And this combat begins with us, by desiring to overcome our abnormal canonical status."
    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/sspx-rome-we-are-back-to-square-one.html

    The idea that there was anything "abnormal" about Catholics who had remained faithful to Tradition was certainly a subversive idea, because as the Avrille Dominicans explained (verbally), "Naturally, if you convince the clergy and faithful that they are in an abnormal situation, they will try to normalize it."

    In any case, a couple years after Fr. Pfluger's statement (which had been making the rounds from SSPX pulpits, conferences, apologetics, and internal letters for years), the old Bishop Tissier briefly reemerged, and in a blistering indictment of those he called "false friends" who suggested the SSPX needed to cure its "abnormal situation," responded:

    "Sixth point, let us reject also the wrong supposition of some of our friends, bad friends, who say the Society of St. Pius X is now in an abnormal situation. Because we are not acknowledged by the church.  The Society of St. Pius X must come back to a normal situation and receive a canonical status from Rome. That is wrong! That is false! We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome! We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacrament and the disposition of to obey the pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition. We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome, now! We have not to come back! These people in Rome have to come back, to Tradition. Let us not reverse the reality. We have not to come back. But these Romans have to come back to their Tradition. To the Tradition of the Church."

    [Transcript: https://www.therecusant.com/tissier-1jan2015]
    [Audio, beginning at 22:35 -
    ]

    What a breath of fresh air!

    But as quickly as he had emerged, Bishop Tissier's voice vanished.

    Nevertheless, a brief moment of courage sufficed to render a lasting and memorable reminder of the SSPX under Archbishop Lefebvre, and which of us (we traditionalists, or Roman modernists) were stuck in an "abnormal situation."

    [Obitur Dictum: The entire sermon is well worth listening to in the audio link provided.  I have no idea why there is a picture of Bishop Fellay on the Bishop Tissier audio link.]


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16