Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45221 times)

X · « **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2019, 10:39:40 AM »

#10: Contradiction (More on Vatican II and Tradition):

In March/2013, Fr. de Cacqueray (then District Superior of France) wrote the following in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors:

"Be that as it may, the Society strongly refuses to admit that Vatican Council II belongs to the Tradition of the Church. We claim on the contrary, that in many points this Council is diametrically opposed to it."
http://sspx.org/en/sspxs-treatment-profound-injustice

Yes, that was surely the SSPX's traditional position.

However, was Fr. de Cacqueray unaware that only 9 months prior, Bishop Fellay had made the following statement:

"Although he stopped short of endorsing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II as essentially in continuity with the church's tradition -- a position which many in the society have vocally disputed -- Bishop Fellay spoke about the idea in strikingly sympathetic terms.

"I would hope so," he said, when asked if Vatican II itself belongs to Catholic tradition.

"The pope says that ... the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely," the bishop said."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/fellay-speaks-to-usbishopss-catholic.html

Do you find Bishop Fellay's response to be a strong "refusal to admit that Vatican II belongs to the Tradition of the Church?"

X · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2019, 02:40:06 PM »

#11: Contradiction (What is the conciliar church?):

In an Open Letter to Fr. Thouvenot (Secretary General of the SSPX), Fr. Matthew Clifton (SSPX - England) spoke of Menzingen "privileging a small group of trusted supports of the new policy towards Rome."
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/collection-of-sspx-resistance-writings/

One of those "privileged" accordist apologists was Fr. Francois Laisney (former District Superior, USA).

In a 12/21/12 article titled "Various Churches?" intended to rebut Bishop Williamson's notion of "Church," Fr. Laisney considers the meaning of the term "conciliar church" as used by Archbishop Lefebvre:

"Then what is the Conciliar Church? This express[ion] was coined by Cardinal Benelli: it manifested clearly the novelty of the reforms introduced by Vatican II. But did it designate a separate Church, with its own structure, its own faithful separated from the Catholic Church? Not really."
https://sspx.org/en/various-churches-fr-laisney-rebuttal

However, Archbishop Lefebvre said the opposite of Fr. Laisney:

"How could it be more clear?! From now on it is the conciliar church one must obey and be faithful to, and not to the Catholic Church. This is precisely our problem. We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, of which we do not want to be a part. This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has it’s new dogmas, it’s new priesthood, it’s new institutions, it’s new liturgy, already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive docuмents. This is why the founders of the conciliar church insist on obedience to the church of today, making abstraction of the Church of yesterday, as if it didn’t exist anymore. […] The church which affirms such errors is at one and the same time heretical and schismatic. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm for the Catholic faith is Tradition.“
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
(See footnote #26: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, handwritten and photocopied, of July 29th 1976, to his friends; reproduced in the Sel de la Terre 36, p. 10.)

True, the conciliar church is not 100% distinct from the Catholic Church, but that they are two different churches with different institutions was, at least to Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and the old SSPX, clear and indisputable.

X · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2019, 06:44:30 PM »

#12: Change (or Hypocrisy?):

In 2003, Fr. Aulagnier was expelled from the SSPX for advocating for a practical accord.

The reasons adduced in favor of reaching a practical agreement with unconverted Rome by Fr. Aulagnier in 2003 are nearly identical to Bishop Fellay's reasons for reaching a practical accord with Rome since 2012:

1) The danger of schism

2) Friendship with the betrayers of Tradition (Campos)

3) An alleged "new attitude in Rome"

4) The conflict may last for ages

The similarities are striking, and cause the reader to wonder:

-Had Fr. Aulagnier kept quiet until 2012, would he not have been in Bishop Fellay's "privileged group" of insiders and apologists?
-If Fr. Aulagnier was expelled for advocating for a practical accord along these lines, by what right does Bishop Fellay retain his membership in the SSPX?

In the article below, Fr. Violette (then District Superior of Canada) is sounding very much like Archbishop Lefebvre and the Resistance, while the rationale he is condemning in Fr. Aulagnier is sounding very much like Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX!

https://sspx.ca/en/publications/newsletters/december-2003-district-superiors-letter-1210

I encourage you to read the entire article, but here are some selections related to the points above:

1) Rebutting the "danger of schism" canard: "Our resistance is not rebellion. It is the necessary attitude of Catholics who want to keep the faith when faced with prelates who attack, deny or threaten it. We do not want to become Protestants!...What is in question is not their [Roman] authority but whether we can trust them or not...It is a matter of can we put ourselves under them and trust them to protect our Faith? Unfortunately the present Roman authorities have proven over and over they cannot be trusted, that they have not changed as we will point out later on."

2) Regarding friendship with the betrayers of Tradition (Campos): "Does it take heroic virtue to capitulate in the fight for Tradition in order to obtain recognition? Did it take heroic virtue to renounce their spiritual father, Bishop de Castro Mayer, to abandon and turn against their former comrades in arms? I don’t think so."

3) Regarding an alleged "new attitude" in Rome: "This is the most unbelievable reason of all. Where has Father Aulagnier [or Bishop Fellay?!]been for the past 5 years?...He seems to have forgotten what Archbishop Lefebvre knew well and denounced: there are two Romes: Catholic Rome and the neo-modernist Rome. As did Archbishop Lefebvre, we adhere with our whole heart to Catholic Rome but reject the neo-modernist Rome. Catholic Rome has been infiltrated and is occupied by Modernists. This is a fact...But we are not looking for acceptance."

4) Regarding the conflict lasting for ages: "In my opinion, I think we might see here the real reason for Father Aulagnier’s [and Bishop Fellay's?] change. The fight is dragging on. He has been at the center of this fight for over 30 years. Maybe he is tired of the fight! But this is not the first time that a conflict over the faith has lasted for ages."

This is not merely a change in the SSPX.

It is hypocrisy.

Yet we are to believe the Resistance are the rebels, and the Fellayistas are the loyal sons of Archbishop Lefebvre??

X · « **Reply #13 on:** February 23, 2019, 07:01:28 AM »

#13: Contradiction (Doctrinal Pluralism):

Formerly, the SSPX used to oppose a practical accord with unconverted Rome because, among other reasons, it wanted Rome to convert back to the faith, for the good of the whole Church, and therefore refused to become just one more "stripe" of Catholicism among the pantheon of modernist flavors.

In late 2003, Fr. Violette (District Superior - Canada) commented upon the reasons for the expulsion of Fr. Aulagnier for his pro-agreement agitation:

"The solution to this crisis will come from Rome when the Roman authorities come back to the integrity of the Faith. But until then we do well to continue our resistance. How long this will take is not our problem but God’s. But we cannot for the sake of a fake unity join those who promote errors, who reduce the Church to a human institution, or simply one religion among others thus destroying it."
https://sspx.ca/en/publications/newsletters/december-2003-district-superiors-letter-1210

And a year earlier, speaking of the modernist Romans, Bishop Fellay declared:

"Currently, there is no conviction that tradition is the right way. They see the fruits; they even say the fruits are good! They say the Holy Ghost is there! (Not too bad!) But, they don’t say, “That’s the way to go.” Instead, they say, “Tradition is a way amongst other ways.” Their perspective is pluralism. Their thinking goes something like this: Oh, look, if we have progressive people who do silly things as members of the Church, then we should also have a place for those who like tradition – a place in the middle of this circus, of this zoo, a place for dinosaurs and the prehistoric animals – that’s our place(!) – “But just stay in your zoo cage,” they will train us…"
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2185

But today, doctrinal pluralism not only seems not objectionable, but, according to this November/2016 interview of Bishop Fellay by conciliar priest, Fr. Kevin Cusick, desirable:

"He [Bishop Fellay] said that we must arrive at a point where one can “disagree and still be a Catholic” when it comes to the mentioned points of Vatican II at issue."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/sspx-exclusive-bp-fellay-speaks-to.html

X · « **Reply #14 on:** February 23, 2019, 07:15:52 AM »

#14: Contradiction (More Doctrinal Pluralism):

Bishop Fellay in 2003:

"But if this is the new concept of the Church, then why not grant a little cage to the dinosaurs? If you already have all the birds and all kinds of animals, why not have a little place for the "fossils" which they think us to be? There is a condition, though: the dinosaurs have to stay in their cage. Imagine crocodiles or dinosaurs all over the zoo! Never! So the Tridentine Mass for everybody? - No! For the dinosaurs in their little cage? - Fine. So when Rome comes to us with a big smile, that is their ulterior motive. That is, we grant you a place, but you must stay very quiet there and not move. So we come to them and we say, "Well, we are sorry, but there is no zoo." The Catholic Church is not a zoo. This comparison may show you how deep is the difference of vision. As long as things are at that level, it is just unthinkable that we should be able to reach a basic or fundamental agreement. It is impossible. And, once again, let us look at Campos."
http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/what_catholics_need_to_know.htm

Bishop Fellay in 2016:

"He said that we must arrive at a point where one can “disagree and still be a Catholic” when it comes to the mentioned points of Vatican II at issue [religious liberty, ecuмenism, liturgical reform]."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/sspx-exclusive-bp-fellay-speaks-to.html

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX (Read 45221 times)

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX

X

Re: Catalog of Compromise, Change, and Contradiction in the SSPX