Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on December 14, 2013, 10:01:38 AM
-
Number CCCXXXV (335)
14 December 2013
FATHER RIOULT II
Let me quote Fr Olivier Rioult from his October 6 interview in Paris (cf. EC 333) on another question, much disputed within today's Catholic Resistance – the question of organization. Fr Rioult was asked whether he thought it was possible to set up a new worldwide organization, or would he rather opt for some kind of free association such as has grouped together sedevacantists for a number of years ? Here is his answer, this time in his very own words:--
"In the months to come I may be setting up a broad kind of association based on friendship with other Catholics in the Resistance, whether or not they are sedevacantists, sedevacantism being for me an opinion. But the situation is not ripe here and now for such an association. In any case whatever is Catholic is ours. So any Catholics ready to operate as Catholics and to resist the modernism reigning supreme within the Church, we will work with. Therefore yes, to a broad kind of association sharing the same common good: the Faith and worship of the Catholic Church, the defence of the Faith. Having this same common good can create friendship amongst all our groups.
"I think that the closer we come to the end times, the more Catholics will have to be anarchists, not in principle but in practice. By which I mean, they will have to be against all the powers that be, because these will all have been neutralized, undermined or subverted, operating contrary to the natural order. Hence, in practice, Catholics will have to stand up to them all, in Church or State... because they will all be twisted out of shape, under Masonic influence... serving in any case the Prince of this world. So I think it will be very difficult to create any more worldwide structures. The French Dominican priest, Fr Roger Calmel, had a clear view of things. As far back as 1970 he said that the natural leaders in any given place will have to make their ministry shine out in that one place, being tied by bonds of no more than friendship to the leaders in any other place.
"In 1970, in the French periodical "Itineraires" (#149), he wrote: "The fight for the Faith will have to be fought by little groups refusing to enter into any structured or universal organizations. Within these various groups, such as a small school, a humble convent, a prayer group, a gathering of Christian families or the organizing of a pilgrimage, the authority is real and accepted by everybody... All that is needed is for each Catholic to reach as far as his grace and authority will carry him in the little sphere which is certainly his to lead, and which he will take charge of without having over him any grand administrative structures to make him do so'. "
If Fr. Calmel wrote that in 1970 for the circuмstances of 1970, one might say either that he was seeing too far ahead, or that Archbishop Lefebvre proved by organizing the Society of St Pius X what could still be done in 1970. But I do think that Fr. Calmel was right in the long run. One might say, watching what happened to the Society last year, that it was bound to run into the sand. Archbishop Lefebvre, like Pope St Pius X, conducted a marvelous rearguard action, but one notes how much less the Archbishop could achieve, coming70 years later than the Pope, and now we are 40 years on from the Archbishop. In a world marching to its ruin the realization of Fr. Calmel’s prophecy could not be indefinitely delayed.
Dear readers, if we wish to stay with Our Lord, we have no choice but to gird our loins. In my opinion, Fr Calmel and Fr Rioult are right. Mother of God, Help of Christians, help !
Kyrie eleison.
Contact Us:
Please write to the applicable email address from among the following with your questions, comments, or concerns:
letters@dinoscopus.org
- for comments to the author about a particular issue of Eleison Comments.
info@dinoscopus.org
- for general questions or comments.
admin@dinoscopus.org
- to resolve technical concerns or problems.
editorial@dinoscopus.org
- for back issues of Eleison Comments.
Donate
While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below or by contacting:
donate@dinoscopus.org
© 2011-2013 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.
A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.
-
If I have observed battle fatigue within the SSPX, I observe it in this Eleison Comments as well.
It explains the refusal to found a worldwide organization like something akin to Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX.
The argument that modern man is no longer disposed to accept authority, and therefore such enterprises are no longer practical or effective is erroneous.
To refuse to build one because of some future persecution is, in my opinion, an insufficient reason.
If we are in constant (apparent) "rebellion," it is because our leaders are showing signs of battle fatigue and trying to negotiate a truce with the enemy.
The fact that ABL founded the SSPX disproves utterly the theory of Fr. Calvert.
We are looking for leaders to whom we can be secure in rendering our obedience, and would happily give it.
Additionally, I find within this letter the seeds of tradcuмenism, which can also only rise as a consequence of battle fatigue, as it is a blatant compromise of principle to set aside dogmatic and doctrinal differences for the sake of opposing modernism.
How can a tradcuмenist oppose ecuмenism?
And how will the resistance escape the same fate as the Protestant sects with no centralized authority, and avoid splintering into ever smaller cells?
This strategy seems rather to provoke the onset of the end times, rather than stave it off.
-
This strategy seems rather to provoke the onset of the end times, rather than stave it off.
If this apostasy is not the end times, then I don't know what is. If Paul VI, JPII, B16 and Francis are not manifest heretics, then I don't want to be around when one shows up.
This reminds me of the story of Big John:
A bar owner in the Old West has just hired a timid new bartender. The owner of the establishment is giving his new hire some instructions on running the place. He tells the timid man, "If you ever hear that Big John is coming to town, drop everything and run for the hills!
A few weeks pass uneventfully. One afternoon, a local cowhand comes running through town yelling, "Big John is a comin, run for your lives!"
When the bartender ties to exit the saloon to start running, he's knocked to the ground by several townspeople scurrying out of town. As he's picking himself up, he sees a mountain of a man burst through the bar doors riding a Buffalo and using a Rattlesnake for a whip. The man jumps off the Buffalo, and crashes his giant fist through the bar, and says whiskey!
Then bartender nervously grabs a fresh bottle on puts it on the counter, and the man break the bottle neck with his teeth and swigged it all down in one shot. As the poor timid bartender cowers behind the bar, the big man gets up to leave. "Do you want another whiskey sir?" the bartender calls out.
Ain't got time, Big John is a-comin
-
This strategy seems rather to provoke the onset of the end times, rather than stave it off.
If this apostasy is not the end times, then I don't know what is. If Paul VI, JPII, B16 and Francis are not manifest heretics, then I don't want to be around when one shows up.
This reminds me of the story of Big John:
A bar owner in the Old West has just hired a timid new bartender. The owner of the establishment is giving his new hire some instructions on running the place. He tells the timid man, "If you ever hear that Big John is coming to town, drop everything and run for the hills!
A few weeks pass uneventfully. One afternoon, a local cowhand comes running through town yelling, "Big John is a comin, run for your lives!"
When the bartender ties to exit the saloon to start running, he's knocked to the ground by several townspeople scurrying out of town. As he's picking himself up, he sees a mountain of a man burst through the bar doors riding a Buffalo and using a Rattlesnake for a whip. The man jumps off the Buffalo, and crashes his giant fist through the bar, and says whiskey!
Then bartender nervously grabs a fresh bottle on puts it on the counter, and the man break the bottle neck with his teeth and swigged it all down in one shot. As the poor timid bartender cowers behind the bar, the big man gets up to leave. "Do you want another whiskey sir?" the bartender calls out.
Ain't got time, Big John is a-comin
[/quot
That's pretty good!
-
"In 1970, in the French periodical "Itineraires" (#149), he wrote: "The fight for the Faith will have to be fought by little groups refusing to enter into any structured or universal organizations. Within these various groups, such as a small school, a humble convent, a prayer group, a gathering of Christian families or the organizing of a pilgrimage, the authority is real and accepted by everybody... All that is needed is for each Catholic to reach as far as his grace and authority will carry him in the little sphere which is certainly his to lead, and which he will take charge of without having over him any grand administrative structures to make him do so'. "
This sounds about right to me. It means we go back to the very basic principle of being responsible for our own families first and foremost. Families are the building blocks of society and as society crumbles we have to start again at square one. We have to scramble to save or rebuild our own building blocks before a new society can begin to take shape. It seems a bit paradoxical that individualism has destroyed society but its rebuilding will depend on individuals, but the difference is that we do not rely on our own powers but beg for miracles of grace to help us.
I think we still have not hit rock bottom; we are still in the phase where our blocks are coming unglued and cracking and falling apart, so visible "proof" that society will be rebuilt is nowhere around. Hope is not a warm feeling but an act of the will. We must be calm and realize this is part of the process. Now is the time to save what we can by "reaching as far as our grace and authority will carry us in our little spheres" and tomorrow will be the day to bring all that is saved together for rebuilding. But it will only happen one step at a time and no sooner.
I believe that is true for all of society, trads are no exception, we're falling and crumbling too. No large organization will make it, we are pretty much back to clan days. Each family or small group of families has to strive to provide for themselves. This is not ideal but until God deems this particular punishment over, it's all we have to work with.
-
If I have observed battle fatigue within the SSPX, I observe it in this Eleison Comments as well.
It explains the refusal to found a worldwide organization like something akin to Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX.
The argument that modern man is no longer disposed to accept authority, and therefore such enterprises are no longer practical or effective is erroneous.
To refuse to build one because of some future persecution is, in my opinion, an insufficient reason.
If we are in constant (apparent) "rebellion," it is because our leaders are showing signs of battle fatigue and trying to negotiate a truce with the enemy.
The fact that ABL founded the SSPX disproves utterly the theory of Fr. Calvert.
We are looking for leaders to whom we can be secure in rendering our obedience, and would happily give it.
Additionally, I find within this letter the seeds of tradcuмenism, which can also only rise as a consequence of battle fatigue, as it is a blatant compromise of principle to set aside dogmatic and doctrinal differences for the sake of opposing modernism.
How can a tradcuмenist oppose ecuмenism?
And how will the resistance escape the same fate as the Protestant sects with no centralized authority, and avoid splintering into ever smaller cells?
This strategy seems rather to provoke the onset of the end times, rather than stave it off.
This is an excellent Eleison Comments. Regarding tradcuмenism, it has existed in Ireland. SSPX youth regularly steward at the Youth Defence pro-life rallies. Differences are put aside for pro-life. An SSPX priest stated recently that YD were never ideal,never understood the battle but could be supported.
The early leadership of Youth Defence met Pope John Paul II in 1992. No Trad believes for a minute YD will 'diss' JPII but can support their events.
Whilst in recent years YD have reached out to new evangelisation types, NewChurch, without Trad support from the early days, the group would be long gone.
YD have stated regularly "we must work together and pray together". This means with protestants.YD works closely with the Charismatic Episcopal Church. 'Fr' Terry Gensmer is a big supporter. He is always addressed as 'Father' Terry so I had to assume YD regard his ordination as valid.
Bishop Williamson is not suffering from battle fatigue. Many paid no heed to him over the years and we see the consequences of it now.
-
I have every confidence in Bishop Williamson. I do not believe for a minute he has battle fatigue. He is busy continuing the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
I have every confidence in Bishop Williamson. I do not believe for a minute he has battle fatigue. He is busy continuing the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre.
It should be blatantly obvious that the birth of the SSPX perfectly rebuts Fr Calvet's theory in 1970, as it does Bishop Williamson's in 2013.
Only battle fatigue could regurgitate it 43 years later, and add tradcuмenism into the mix as well.
-
Only battle fatigue
Those who appear "battle fatigued" were never really fighters to begin with. Bishop Tissier was never a fighter. When Fr Chazal took a necessary stand, Bishop Tissier was a disgrace. Blind and false obedience. Bishop de Galarreta is not a fighter.
In the end only Bishop Williamson remained true to the Archbishop and fights on.
Same with laity. A very mixed bag. A minority have any fight in them. Majority will go with Bishop Fellay regardless. Many were never on the battlefield so could never be fatigued.
Fr Pfluger was mocking Bishop Williamson in the letter when the Bishop mentioned war. Yet many Irish SSPX laity greeted Fr Pfluger warmly despite everything.Strange.
-
Only battle fatigue
Those who appear "battle fatigued" were never really fighters to begin with. Bishop Tissier was never a fighter. When Fr Chazal took a necessary stand, Bishop Tissier was a disgrace. Blind and false obedience. Bishop de Galarreta is not a fighter.
In the end only Bishop Williamson remained true to the Archbishop and fights on.
Same with laity. A very mixed bag. A minority have any fight in them. Majority will go with Bishop Fellay regardless.
John-
I don't disagree with you.
Yes, Bishop Williamson is still fighting.
But apparently, he is now willing to enlist the help of allies which have been traditional enemies.
Besides being an obvious regression into ecuмenism/tradcuмenism, how do you account for this development, but for the suspicion that it is an attempt to suppress the obvious splintering which will ravage the resistance if there is centralized authority?
In other words, rather than continue to fight against the sedes, and Rome, and Menzingen, and whoever else, let's just make friends of everyone opposed to modernism.
Not good.
-
In other words, rather than continue to fight against the sedes, and Rome, and Menzingen, and whoever else, let's just make friends of everyone opposed to modernism.
I think we have to keep the Archbishop's line and fight Sedevacantism as well.
-
Only battle fatigue
Those who appear "battle fatigued" were never really fighters to begin with. Bishop Tissier was never a fighter. When Fr Chazal took a necessary stand, Bishop Tissier was a disgrace. Blind and false obedience. Bishop de Galarreta is not a fighter.
In the end only Bishop Williamson remained true to the Archbishop and fights on.
Same with laity. A very mixed bag. A minority have any fight in them. Majority will go with Bishop Fellay regardless.
John-
I don't disagree with you.
Yes, Bishop Williamson is still fighting.
But apparently, he is now willing to enlist the help of allies which have been traditional enemies.
Besides being an obvious regression into ecuмenism/tradcuмenism, how do you account for this development, but for the suspicion that it is an attempt to suppress the obvious splintering which will ravage the resistance if there is centralized authority?
In other words, rather than continue to fight against the sedes, and Rome, and Menzingen, and whoever else, let's just make friends of everyone opposed to modernism.
Not good.
In ways it is a dialogue of the deaf. I favour a decentralised resistance structure. For example should a man consider priesthood, my advice would be to become an apprentice with a local resistance priest as opposed to the classical seminary. It shouldn't mean not to support the new seminary in Kentucky.
What I mean by a dialogue of the deaf is whilst many Trads in Ireland support Youth Defence, this group doesn't resist Modernism. Their participation at a World Youth Day highlights this.
As things stand many in Youth Defence dip in and out of both Indult and SSPX.
If YD as a pro-life group were to embrace the resistance they would lose about 80% of support from NewChurch types.
The NewChurch Catholics need to be educated.
-
"The fight for the Faith will have to be fought by little groups refusing to enter into any structured or universal organizations. Within these various groups, such as a small school, a humble convent, a prayer group, a gathering of Christian families or the organizing of a pilgrimage,
This is good but an obvious problem is the vast majority of groups, schools, prayer groups are promoting modernism and error.
Sometimes people say join them and "keep them Catholic". A few here and there in these groups,schools, etc are keeping the faith.
Whilst soulguard has dismissed me as an idiot, I am aware of some resistance in certain places. People are being 'worked on'. It's necessary to 'tradify'
-
I totally agree with Sean Johnson.
-
I must ask then: "Has your opinion of sede vacant changed since Franny the Fraud took over? Has the theory become more palpable for you?"
I agree with the Bishop that it is an opinion, which even Archbishop Lefevbre said that one could hold.
And I do not think he has "battle fatigue." Not in the slightest.
-
If I have observed battle fatigue within the SSPX, I observe it in this Eleison Comments as well.
It explains the refusal to found a worldwide organization like something akin to Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX.
Sean:
I read it a little differently. Although it is no secret that I am not a fan of Mgr. Williamson, structurally I think he advocating for something more akin to what Mgr Lefebvre intended in founding the FSSPX. Today's highly-centralized FSSPX came about slowly after the Sede Nine, the 1988 consecrations and finally, the election of Mgr Fellay as Superior General in the 90's.
Going back to the early days, Mgr Lefebvre had never intended to found a highly centralized religious order. He ran the SSPX but allowed various allied religious orders, monasteries and independent chapels to operate independently. Nor did he ever envision a bishop as superior general of the FSSPX. Which is why none of the SSPX's top superiors at the time were consecrated bishop. In fact, one of his main canonical arguments against the 1988 consecrations being an act of schism was the fact the bishops claimed no jurisdiction and were otherwise subject to Fr. Schmidberger and the priestly superiors of the FSSPX.
This was explained to me, back then, by some of the old guard as follows: Mgr Lefebvre was not sure where the primary threat against the FSSPX might come from after he died - whether it would be communism, socialism, modernism, secularism or some new "ism". So he kept it de-centralized intentionally to prevent some "ism" from ever being able to take over the entire movement should Econe or other centers of the FSSPX fall.
Whether Mgr Lefebvre and Mgr Williamson are correct or incorrect, is not for me to determine. But that was the rationale.
-
And how will the resistance escape the same fate as the Protestant sects with no centralized authority, and avoid splintering into ever smaller cells?
The need for bishops in order to propagate.
-
But apparently, he is now willing to enlist the help of allies which have been traditional enemies.
Besides being an obvious regression into ecuмenism/tradcuмenism, how do you account for this development, but for the suspicion that it is an attempt to suppress the obvious splintering which will ravage the resistance if there is centralized authority?
Sean, you and Matthew are more familiar with Mgr Williamson than I am, having studied under him at seminary. However, while Mgr Williamson always ruled out an alliance with sedevacantists in the present, I do not believe he ever ruled it out as a future possibility.
I recall attending a large confirmation Mass he headed during the early-to-mid 90's. After the mass and confirmations he gave a lunch seminar in which he went through the history of liberalism and modernism and tied it in with the seven ages of the Church. I cannot recall who all was present from the SSPX, but Fr. Emily was there as District Superior for Canada and Fr. Gruner was also present from Fatima Crusader.
After arriving at the present in his historical talk, Mgr Williamson warned that liberals and modernists would seek to attack the FSSPX and take it over from within. "There may come a day when we have to leave the SSPX to remain Catholic," he said. "There may come a day when to remain Catholic we have to become sedevacantist."
He then said that day would not come under Pope John Paul II, but he could envision it happening under Pope John Paul II's successor. Of course Pope Benedict was somewhat of a surprise to most traditionalists, so Mgr. Williamson never followed up under Pope Benedict's pontificate.
The reason I remember this so clearly is because I was pretty shocked, as were some other friends who had come with me. I called Michael Davies as soon as I got home. He was pretty surprised, asked me to gather my friends who had been present in order to write down what we had heard, and forward our letters to him. He promised to raise the issue with Mgr. Fellay or Fr. Schmidberger, whoever was Superior General of the FSSPX at the time.
Some of the ideas Mgr Williamson dealt with in that talk, in which he rejected sedevacantism in the present but allowed for the possibility after Pope John Paul II left office, were taken up again in a Q&A he published as part of his monthly letter from Winona:
http://williamsonletters.blogspot.ca/2009/02/examining-crisis-in-church-as-we-near.html
-
PV:
After arriving at the present in his historical talk, Mgr Williamson warned that liberals and modernists would seek to attack the FSSPX and take it over from within. "There may come a day when we have to leave the SSPX to remain Catholic," he said. "There may come a day when to remain Catholic we have to become sedevacantist."
Certainly that has happened, hasn't it? The sspx has been taken over from within. I have left sspx in the expectation of salvaging what remains of my Catholic faith. But why, in leaving sspx, we would be forced into SVism, is not clear to me.
-
A large, top-heavy organisation can be easily taken down under persecution, A loose confederation is much more difficult to irridicate. Take a lesson from the Muslim cells. Or from the North Vietnamese. The last battle will be fought guerilla style.
-
PV:After arriving at the present in his historical talk, Mgr Williamson warned that liberals and modernists would seek to attack the FSSPX and take it over from within. "There may come a day when we have to leave the SSPX to remain Catholic," he said. "There may come a day when to remain Catholic we have to become sedevacantist."
Certainly that has happened, hasn't it? The sspx has been taken over from within. I have left sspx in the expectation of salvaging what remains of my Catholic faith. But why, in leaving sspx, we would be forced into SVism, is not clear to me.
I understand where you are coming from, hollingsworth, but given that I am one of Mgr. Williamson's outspoken critics, I am not the best person to defend him on this topic.
What is clear from his newsletter cited above is that at the time he rejected sedevacantism in present (Dec 1, 1996), stating:
*********
Q: Meanwhile, do you not think the darkness is such as to have taken away our Popes? Is it not logical to think that recent Popes have been so bad that they cannot have been popes at all?
A: I think it is only logical if you exaggerate papal infallibility, as do both liberals and sedevacantists. Both say, popes are infallible and recent popes are liberal. The sedevacantists conclude, therefore these "popes" are not popes. Oscar Wilde said, sentimentality is the bank-holiday of cynicism (prolonged holiday today!). Similarly, sedevacantism is the reverse side of liberalism. Admittedly, this is the Church's worst crisis ever. Nevertheless, Church history indicates how far Our Lord can go in allowing his Vicars to err while he works around their errors to prevent them from destroying the Church. True, the pope leads the Church. But the Church is greater than the pope. Sedevacantists are like liberals in almost reducing the Church to the pope.
*********
However, he left sedevacantism open as a future possibility, likely under the conclave following Pope John Paul II:
*********
Q: Then what do you see concerning the next Conclave to elect a Pope? Malachi Martin is saying that, "short of a miracle", John-Paul II will die or be replaced within a year by someone who will co-operate with the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and with their agenda of control of population and education.
A: Surely the next Conclave will significantly darken the Church. John-Paul II may have such faults as Pope as to at least partly excuse the distress reaction of sedevacantism, but just let sedevacantists see John-Paul's successor! Then they may think John-Paul II was an angel in comparison! They must admit that it is to John-Paul's credit that (as Malachi Martin tells us) the globalist churchmen want him out of the way, pushing him to resign if he will not die. Inadequate though he may have been as Pope, objectively speaking, things are set to be worse without him. It is possible to imagine the See of Rome becoming truly vacant.
Q: Why? Do you think the next conclave to elect a pope will not be valid?
A: Possibly. An invalid election has certainly been made easier by one of the recent changes in the rules for electing a pope. From 1179 until earlier this year a two- thirds majority of the Cardinals voting was required, but now a pope may be elected by a one-vote majority, making his election potentially as dubious as any one of the votes electing him. Did the liberals now in power in Rome make this change to facilitate the election of one of their own men? Or do they envisage undermining the one-man rule of the Church, instituted by Our Lord, because an individual man can always let himself be moved by God's grace to block their plans, whereas some more or less democratic substitute like a Cardinals' Committee will always be subject to control by themselves? Interesting speculation.
Q: But would not such a dissolution of the papacy be the end of the Church?
A: Such an eclipse of the Papacy would surely bring on the virtual eclipse of the Church mentioned earlier. But man proposes, God disposes. Just suppose a globalist pope is dubiously elected at the next conclave, thanks to the unwisely loosened rules. It is easy to imagine a parallel with the introduction of the Novus Ordo missal in 1969. Back then, a Catholic had to love the Mass to take the trouble of examining the legislation supposedly mandating the new missal, but if he did take the trouble, sure enough, he found the legislation was so flawed that the new missal is not in fact mandatory. Similarly tomorrow, it may take a Catholic who loves the papacy to question the new "pope" acclaimed by the vile media and accepted by nearly all "Catholics", but if, thanks to the new rules' looseness, the election will have been a fraud, God will have left enough evidence for souls of good will to see clearly that it was a fraud.
*********
Again, Mgr Williamson was simply speculating, and he did not follow through with his speculation during Pope Benedict's papacy. However, now that Benedict has stepped down and Pope Francis elected to the papal throne, coupled with Mgr. Williamson's recent expulsion from the FSSPX, I certainly will not be surprised if he follows through - even if only partially - on his old speculative ideas and treats with sedevacantists.
-
The talk at the luncheon in the mid 90's by Bp Williamson was extremely prescient...quite predictable that ( probably ) the most talented and dedicated bishop consecrated by ArchBp LeFebvre was the one expelled...and, of course, the least talented..the least inspiring...the one most easily manipulated by outside forces...and, undoubtedly, the most venal rose to the top and built a network that could keep him there..well, no one is perfect..The ArchBp also made Fr. Kelly the Dist Sup here in the US.. :facepalm:
-
The talk at the luncheon in the mid 90's by Bp Williamson was extremely prescient...quite predictable that ( probably ) the most talented and dedicated bishop consecrated by ArchBp LeFebvre was the one expelled...and, of course, the least talented..the least inspiring...the one most easily manipulated by outside forces...and, undoubtedly, the most venal rose to the top and built a network that could keep him there..well, no one is perfect..The ArchBp also made Fr. Kelly the Dist Sup here in the US.. :facepalm:
I cannot recall if Mgr. Fellay was mentioned at the luncheon. I cannot even recall if Mgr. Fellay was Superior General at the time, or whether it was still Fr. Schmidberger. For some reason I cannot put my finger on, I think Fr. Schmidberger may still have been Superior General.
Regardless, what I can confirm is that back then supporter and critic alike would have been surprised if you had told us that 20 years down the road Mgr. Fellay not only would be Superior General, but he would consolidate power within the FSSPX's organizational structure. Back then he was generally viewed as the weakest of the four bishops, who themselves were weaker than the leading superiors such as Fr. Schmidberger and Fr. Aulagnier. This was primarily due to age - not only was he the youngest of the four bishops consecrated by Mgr. Lefebvre, he was five years below canonical age if I recall correctly. So nobody believed him a lesser talent, less inspiring or easily manipulated. He simply lacked the experienced of the others. Today is different, of course. He is just shy of the 20 year mark as Superior General. But back then, he was believed to have been a compromise candidate between Fr. Schmidberger and Mgr Williamson during the 1994 General Chapter.
Again, with the caveat I remain one of the bishop's critics, what I can attest to though is that Mgr Williamson stated the following four points during the luncheon:
1 - Sedevacantists were mistaken about Pope John Paul II.
2 - After Pope John Paul II left the papacy (Mgr Williamson stated he was not sure whether JPII would die in office or be driven out), modernists would attempt to take over the FSSPX and modernize it from within. For some reason I think I recall him saying the FSSPX would be lucky to survive 40 years.
3 - The time may come when he and other traditionalists would be forced to flee the FSSPX in order to remain Catholic.
4 - When that time came, he and others may find themselves sedevacantists in order to remain Catholic.
So I understand Sean's objections to Mgr. Williamson's latest newsletter. However, I disagree that Mgr. Williamson has spoken solely out of battle fatigue. I can recall Mgr Williamson discussing these same ideas as an eventuality approximately 20 years back.
-
PV:
I understand where you are coming from, hollingsworth, but given that I am one of Mgr. Williamson's outspoken critics, I am not the best person to defend him on this topic.
I am interested in learning why you are so critical of Bp. Williamson. Your name has a familiar ring, but I am not at all familiar with any dispute you might have with H.E. Haven't you written quite a bit in the past? I get the impression that your relationship with sspx went sour along the way, and that Bp. Williamson may have had much to do with it. He has his enemies, to be sure. He is not perfect. But, on balance, he seems to me to be one of the most honest and enlighened clerics on the traditional landscape.
-
I'm sure Bp Fellay wasn't Sup Gen at the time...but I'm also sure that human nature/original sin can, more often than not, be counted on to ruin anything good...I could never care less to hear why someone doesn't like HEBW...it's usually: 1. too controversial ( Fr. Themann's "prudential truth" garbage )..2. they're Americanists...3. all they care about is the "smells and bells" and a "conservative atmosphere..".so, they're contemptibly shallow..4. if something sounds unsettling ( even if true ) they'd rather not hear it...5. as long as they get their smells and bells and there's a white Repub in the WH ( who promises to cut their cap gains tax and do something-finally-about abortion..( even when they constantly nominate people like Sandra Day O'Connor..Kennedy and Souter ) then all is right in their world..which means 6. they couldn't care less about the Social Reign of Christ the King...
The people at St. Michaels on LI complained that Fr. Pfeiffer spent their precious building fund money even though: 1. the bldg had a bad roof and was on the verge of being condemned by the bldg insp..2. it looked like an uninspiring old dress factory-still...he made it look like a real chapel and, for his trouble, was shipped off to the Far East for the rest of his life..Before that they complained about Fr. Chazal: he reached out to the Catholic Mexican day laborers and helped co-ordinate their rcvng Consular Matricula cards ( for i.d. ) which they have a right to anyway...and he took the Catholic Scouts out east for ( combat-like ) paintball.....and,and,and...Some of these people are abominable...they don't deserve priests, or good bishops, bc they don't appreciate them when the Good Lord supplies them anyway!
-
PV:I understand where you are coming from, hollingsworth, but given that I am one of Mgr. Williamson's outspoken critics, I am not the best person to defend him on this topic.
I am interested in learning why you are so critical of Bp. Williamson. Your name has a familiar ring, but I am not at all familiar with any dispute you might have with H.E. Haven't you written quite a bit in the past? I get the impression that your relationship with sspx went sour along the way, and that Bp. Williamson may have had much to do with it. He has his enemies, to be sure. He is not perfect. But, on balance, he seems to me to be one of the most honest and enlighened clerics on the traditional landscape.
To be clear, it was always Mgr Williamson's actions and linking the traditionalist movement to fringe movements I disliked, and not the person who I found honest and sincere in my past dealings with him. In fact, his honesty is one thing I will defend about him. He was quite open about his 9-11 Truthism, his h0Ɩ0cαųst denial, and about the likelihood of leaving the FSSPX and embracing sedevacantism in the future.
Of course today most of these issues are out in the open now, whereas back then the superiors of the FSSPX adopted a clericalist approach in which they pretended Mgr. Williamson engaged in no such activities, and that lay people should simply "Pray, pay and obey." That's the 50'ism mentality that got the Church into this crisis to begin with.
There was also the fact he and Dom Gerard Calvet always mistrusted each other. In fact, Mgr Williamson's last minute addition to the list of candidates for episcopal consecration was the cause of the falling out between Dom Gerard and Mgr Lefebvre. Of all the early leaders of the traditionalist movement I was blessed to meet, Dom Gerard always struck me as the most prescient and possessing the deepest insight into the crisis affecting the Church. Certainly I never would have embraced Tradition had it not been for his book "Demain, la chretiente." So naturally I trusted Dom Calvet's prophetic insight into the crisis over that of Mgr Fellay and Mgr Williamson. And for the Ecclesia Dei perspective, Calvet proved right in his 1988 prediction that Mgr. Williamson would split the FSSPX within a decade or two of Mgr. Lefebvre's death.
Looking back from today, what I find interesting is that both Dom Calvet and Mgr Williamson were able to predict over 20 years ago the latter's eventual departure from the FSSPX and coalition with (or tolerance of) sedevacantism. On the other hand, the FSSPX steadfastly pretended that warnings were nothing more than the vivid imaginings of its critics and persecutors.
-
PV:
(Dom Gerard) Calvet proved right in his 1988 prediction that Mgr. Williamson would split the FSSPX within a decade or two of Mgr. Lefebvre's death.
I've never heard of Dom Gerard Calvet. In any case, Pete, I thank you for an answer. So, it appears, it is not a question of Bp. W's honesty or basic integrity. I am happy to hear that. As for Msgr. Calvet's prediction: Certainly, at this point in time, you are not going to lay off on His Excellency total blame for splitting the Society. Hasn't Bp. Fellay had something to do with this? Haven't his behavor and actions made some pretty enormous contributions to this split? I think they have.
-
Yes. of course...bishops shouldn't deign to comment on secular things...God, and a healthy love of truth, should be kept in the Sanctuary where all that belongs...Like Noam chomsky said, " it doesn't matter who really did 9-11"..Yeah, it doesn't matter bc his cousins in Mossad and their agents, assets and allies in country did it...The h0Ɩ0h0αx...which can be disproven so easily it's laughable..( Jєωιѕн World Almanac 1933 15,315,00+ Jєωs in the world..1948-15,753,000 ) but it can't be mentioned...Why? Because it demonstrates the power these people have over society? Really, if Church leaders aren't going to talk about what the enemies of Christ are doing every once in a while and what's really going on in the world...what good are they?
I truly dislike that mentality and those that have it...I'm glad I don't to any Fellay-bots in the parish...if I hear disrespect directed at HEBW in my presence-watch-out....you'll be asked if you want to "step outside.." But I used to be a parishioner on LI...so I have a short fuse when it comes to some of you people who may as well be wearing Mason's aprons...
-
I've never heard of Dom Gerard Calvet.
He was the Benedictine priest, a close friend of Mgr. Lefebvre's prior to 1988, who restored Le Barroux as a monastery, and in doing so preserved and restored traditional Benedictine liturgy and practice. His book "Demain la chretiente" was basically the blueprint for the traditionalist movement in France and the French-speaking traditionalist world during my generation.
I translated it into English with a good friend of mine, but we ran into some issues during the publication stage. Gary Potter - an American journalist and early pioneer of the traditionalist movement in the U.S. - considered it essential reading for all young traditionalist men and women.
The book (and Calvet's writings) simply never gained the traction and influence on the American side of the Atlantic that they did in Europe. Which is unfortunate since the book remains the best case ever written for adherence to and restoration of Catholic Tradition.
So, it appears, it is not a question of Bp. W's honesty or basic integrity.
Heck no. It is exclusively his words and his actions. In terms of integrity, I consider Mgr Williamson one of the most honest and candid individuals I (and others I know) have ever dealt with--although my dealings with him were many years ago. I will even add that in my experience, he also one of the least clericalist among FSSPX clergy when it comes to dealing with laity.
Certainly, at this point in time, you are not going to lay off on His Excellency total blame for splitting the Society.
As one generally sympathetic to Dom Gerard's thinking when it comes to traditionalist controversies, I think the split between the SSPX and the Resistance, and where to assign the blame, is something for the SSPX & Resistance to work out internally.
I am sure that if Dom Gerard were still among the living, he might offer an opinion after careful reflection and prayer. But he is not.
Needless to say, Dom Gerard would not have been surprised by the split, having told me personally back in the late 90's it was just a matter of time.
-
All of that is what makes this all so frustrating...and sad...because it really wasn't that remarkable a prediction...the enemy can tolerate bells and smells and a lot of Latin in the Mass...an Offertory that isn't gutted...etc...But the enemy WILL NOT tolerate the militancy that is supposed to go along with Traditional Catholicism.. :boxer: :king:
-
I've never heard of Dom Gerard Calvet.
He was the Benedictine priest, a close friend of Mgr. Lefebvre's prior to 1988, who restored Le Barroux as a monastery, and in doing so preserved and restored traditional Benedictine liturgy and practice. His book "Demain la chretiente" was basically the blueprint for the traditionalist movement in France and the French-speaking traditionalist world during my generation.
I translated it into English with a good friend of mine, but we ran into some issues during the publication stage. Gary Potter - an American journalist and early pioneer of the traditionalist movement in the U.S. - considered it essential reading for all young traditionalist men and women.
The book (and Calvet's writings) simply never gained the traction and influence on the American side of the Atlantic that they did in Europe. Which is unfortunate since the book remains the best case ever written for adherence to and restoration of Catholic Tradition.
So, it appears, it is not a question of Bp. W's honesty or basic integrity.
Heck no. It is exclusively his words and his actions. In terms of integrity, I consider Mgr Williamson one of the most honest and candid individuals I (and others I know) have ever dealt with--although my dealings with him were many years ago. I will even add that in my experience, he also one of the least clericalist among FSSPX clergy when it comes to dealing with laity.
Certainly, at this point in time, you are not going to lay off on His Excellency total blame for splitting the Society.
As one generally sympathetic to Dom Gerard's thinking when it comes to traditionalist controversies, I think the split between the SSPX and the Resistance, and where to assign the blame, is something for the SSPX & Resistance to work out internally.
I am sure that if Dom Gerard were still among the living, he might offer an opinion after careful reflection and prayer. But he is not.
Needless to say, Dom Gerard would not have been surprised by the split, having told me personally back in the late 90's it was just a matter of time.
Of course, those monks at La Barroux became bi-ritual in short order.
That in turn causes me to question his conception of "traditionalism" which one might find within the covers of the book you are recommending.
And of course, we have Archbishop Lefebvre's many assessments of how and why he capitulated to Conciliarism.
-
It is interesting you say that Dom Gerard predicted a split back in the late 1990s.
Perhaps he was already aware of GREC, and the inroads it was making amongst certain influential SSPXers.
If that were the case, it would not take too much foresight to see that other SSPXers would not go along with this plan, and a split would be inevitable.
-
It is interesting you say that Dom Gerard predicted a split back in the late 1990s.
Actually, spring of 1988 to be exact. Remember he was one of Mgr Lefebvre's strongest and most vocal supporters with regards to the consecrations. At the time, Mgr Lefebvre had only named then-Fathers Fellay, Tissier and de Gallereta [sp?] as his candidates for episcopal consecration. Then-Father Williamson's name was added subsequently. I don't have it with me at the moment, but I believe the book "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican" published by Angelus Press contains all the docuмentation. Though it may have been Michael Davies' three-part apologia of Mgr Lefebvre. Regardless, Mgr Williamson was not named on the original list.
Dom Gerard withdrew his support for the consecrations when Mgr Lefebvre added then-Father Williamson's name to the list. This led to a confrontation between Mgr. Lefebvre and Dom Gerard, in which Dom Gerard predicted Mgr Williamson would split the FSSPX within a decade or two of Mgr Lefebvre's death.
-
It is interesting you say that Dom Gerard predicted a split back in the late 1990s.
Actually, spring of 1988 to be exact. Remember he was one of Mgr Lefebvre's strongest and most vocal supporters with regards to the consecrations. At the time, Mgr Lefebvre had only named then-Fathers Fellay, Tissier and de Gallereta [sp?] as his candidates for episcopal consecration. Then-Father Williamson's name was added subsequently. I don't have it with me at the moment, but I believe the book "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican" published by Angelus Press contains all the docuмentation. Though it may have been Michael Davies' three-part apologia of Mgr Lefebvre. Regardless, Mgr Williamson was not named on the original list.
Dom Gerard withdrew his support for the consecrations when Mgr Lefebvre added then-Father Williamson's name to the list. This led to a confrontation between Mgr. Lefebvre and Dom Gerard, in which Dom Gerard predicted Mgr Williamson would split the FSSPX within a decade or two of Mgr Lefebvre's death.
Pete-
That is an interesting post, since the Resistance claim exactly the opposite:
It was Fr. Fellay who did not appear on the original list of consecrands, and was only added later, at the behest of wealthy Swiss benefactors.
I would love to see some docuмentation which could prove the matter one way or the other.
-
Peter Vere is the author of the book - Annulment: 100 Questions and Answers for Catholics
All American Bishops have lost God's Grace because of their participation in the USA conciliar Church annulment scam. All wisdom comes from God. Without God's Grace we are blind. Peter Vere makes a living in the annulment racket. Until he repents for his participation in this abomination, he will remain a dumb guide, just like everyone else who participates in granting these bogus annulments.
"I do not speak rashly, but as I feel and think., I do not think that many priests are saved but that those that perish are far more numerous. The reason is that the office requires a great soul. For there are many things to make a priest swerve from rectitude, and he requires great vigilance on every side. Do you not perceive how many qualities a bishop must have that he may be apt to teach; patient towards the wicked, firm and faithful in teaching the Word? How many difficulties herein.
Moreover the loss of others is imputed to him. I need say no more. If but one dies without baptism, does it not entirely endanger his salvation? For the loss of one soul is so great an evil as no man can understand. If the salvation of one soul is of such importance that, for its sake, the Son of God became man and suffered so much, think of the penalty the loss of one soul will entail. (St. John Chrysostom, Third Homily, Acts of the Apostles)
-
That in turn causes me to question his conception of "traditionalism" which one might find within the covers of the book you are recommending.
His conception of Tradition is that its restoration must go hand-in-hand with the restoration of Christendom and the restoration of the monastic life.
Certainly history would prove him correct, especially on the second point. If there is one thing Protestant Reformers, Communists, French Revolutionaries and Islamic extremists have in common - their attacks against Catholic faithful and their attempts to suppress the Catholic faith always begin with a suppression of monasteries and the monastic life.
Thus the state of the traditional monastic life with a given society is one of the best barometers of the state of Catholic Tradition within that society.
-
That in turn causes me to question his conception of "traditionalism" which one might find within the covers of the book you are recommending.
His conception of Tradition is that its restoration must go hand-in-hand with the restoration of Christendom and the restoration of the monastic life.
Certainly history would prove him correct, especially on the second point. If there is one thing Protestant Reformers, Communists, French Revolutionaries and Islamic extremists have in common - their attacks against Catholic faithful and their attempts to suppress the Catholic faith always begin with a suppression of monasteries and the monastic life.
Thus the state of the traditional monastic life with a given society is one of the best barometers of the state of Catholic Tradition within that society.
Yet he allowed his monastery to say a Mass offensive to God.
He had the trappings, smells, and bells of tradition, but not integral tradition itself.
He had monastic discipline, but not integral Catholic doctrine.
It was (and is) a compromised endeavor.
-
I would love to see some docuмentation which could prove the matter one way or the other.
Ditto.
Unfortunately I don't have access to my notes or a library right now, and it has long become a dead issue on our side of the divide.
However, as previously mentioned, the docuмentation might be in "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican" or one of Davies' "Apologia pro Lefebvre" volumes - each published by the Angelus Press. I would imagine that someone following this thread has access to these works.
-
It is interesting you say that Dom Gerard predicted a split back in the late 1990s.
Actually, spring of 1988 to be exact. Remember he was one of Mgr Lefebvre's strongest and most vocal supporters with regards to the consecrations. At the time, Mgr Lefebvre had only named then-Fathers Fellay, Tissier and de Gallereta [sp?] as his candidates for episcopal consecration. Then-Father Williamson's name was added subsequently. I don't have it with me at the moment, but I believe the book "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican" published by Angelus Press contains all the docuмentation. Though it may have been Michael Davies' three-part apologia of Mgr Lefebvre. Regardless, Mgr Williamson was not named on the original list.
Dom Gerard withdrew his support for the consecrations when Mgr Lefebvre added then-Father Williamson's name to the list. This led to a confrontation between Mgr. Lefebvre and Dom Gerard, in which Dom Gerard predicted Mgr Williamson would split the FSSPX within a decade or two of Mgr Lefebvre's death.
Pete-
That is an interesting post, since the Resistance claim exactly the opposite:
It was Fr. Fellay who did not appear on the original list of consecrands, and was only added later, at the behest of wealthy Swiss benefactors.
I would love to see some docuмentation which could prove the matter one way or the other.
Yes, I too would like to see this. Pete, both the books you mention can be found online on the Society's Asia website (specifically here (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/index.htm) and here (http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/)). Perhaps you could tell us which specific letter you are talking about?
-
Anyway, I think the bigger issue here concerns the apparent softening of Mgr. Williamson's stance toward sedevacantism. At least toward collaborating with them. I will not defend his actions in doing so, even though I believe it inevitable that the bulk of the Resistance will find itself absorbed into sedevacantist chapels - although the Resistance faithful themselves are likely to adopt softer stances of sede-privationism, sede-agnosticism or trad-ecuмenism.
Nevertheless, some - not here, but elsewhere within the R&R - have accused Mgr Williamson of harbouring a hidden agenda in doing so. I don't believe these accusations to be fair. If anything, Mgr Williamson has been very open and candid about the possibility of splitting from the SSPX and embracing sedevacantism after Pope John Paul II left office. Nor is this a recent phenomena since Mgr Williamson had been stating this prediction publicly for close to 20 years.
Likewise, I have to disagree respectfully with those like yourself, Sean, who are generally supportive of Mgr Williamson - or at least hold him in good faith - but who express concern that his latest newsletter may be a sign of battle fatigue. I think folks need to realize that Mgr Williamson has never kept any of his views hidden, or acted less-than-candidly among his lay supporters. Thus his words 20 years ago predicting his eventual departure from the FSSPX and forging an alliance with sedevacantism are to be taken at face value.
This last point is the one I found most frustrating 20 years ago when I attempted to bring it to the attention of Menzigan, Una Voce International, and other FSSPX leaders and allies. Everyone assumed every possible interpretation ("Surely you are exaggerating!" "Bishop Williamson is just being flamboyant!" etc...) except the possibility that Mgr. Williamson was being honest and candid with lay faithful about where he stood.
-
Yes, I too would like to see this. Pete, both the books you mention can be found online on the Society's Asia website (specifically here (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/index.htm) and here (http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/)). Perhaps you could tell us which specific letter you are talking about?
Don't know specifically, but my guess is that the evidence - if published - would be among the notices either Mgr Lefebvre or the SSPX published about his intention to consecrate priests to the episcopate. So probably the best place to start researching is with the correspondence where Mgr. Lefebvre withdrew his signature from the protocol agreement negotiated with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, but before the actual consecration.
-
trad-ecuмenism.
Trad-ecuмenism is not a word. :fryingpan:
-
.
Number CCCXXXV (335) 14 December 2013
FATHER RIOULT II
Let me quote Fr Olivier Rioult from his October 6 interview in Paris (cf. EC 333) on another question, much disputed within today's Catholic Resistance – the question of organization. Fr Rioult was asked whether he thought it was possible to set up a new worldwide organization, or would he rather opt for some kind of free association such as has grouped together sedevacantists for a number of years ? Here is his answer, this time in his very own words:--
"In the months to come I may be setting up a broad kind of association based on friendship with other Catholics in the Resistance, whether or not they are sedevacantists, sedevacantism being for me an opinion.
Would that Catholics today follow the ideological example of the great Fr. Rioult insofar as here he gives the example of Catholics being able to work together toward this august common goal, which is the preservation of the Catholic Faith.
"But the situation is not ripe here and now for such an association. In any case whatever is Catholic is ours. So any Catholics ready to operate as Catholics and to resist the modernism reigning supreme within the Church, we will work with. Therefore yes, to a broad kind of association sharing the same common good: the Faith and worship of the Catholic Church, the defence of the Faith.
"Having this same common good can create friendship amongst all our groups.
"I think that the closer we come to the end times, the more Catholics will have to be anarchists, not in principle but in practice. By which I mean, they will have to be against all the powers that be, because these will all have been neutralized, undermined or subverted, operating contrary to the natural order.
"Hence, in practice, Catholics will have to stand up to them all, in Church or State... because they will all be twisted out of shape, under Masonic influence... serving in any case the Prince of this world.
"So I think it will be very difficult to create any more worldwide structures. The French Dominican priest, Fr Roger Calmel, had a clear view of things. As far back as 1970 he said that the natural leaders in any given place will have to make their ministry shine out in that one place, being tied by bonds of no more than friendship to the leaders in any other place.
"In 1970, in the French periodical 'Itineraires' (#149), he wrote":
The fight for the Faith will have to be fought by little groups
refusing to enter into any structured or universal organizations.
Within these various groups, such as a small school, a humble
convent, a prayer group, a gathering of Christian families or the
organizing of a pilgrimage, the authority is real and accepted by
everybody... All that is needed is for each Catholic to reach as
far as his grace and authority will carry him in the little sphere
which is certainly his to lead, and which he will take charge of
without having over him any grand administrative structures to
make him do so.
If Fr. Calmel wrote that in 1970 for the circuмstances of 1970, one might say either that he was seeing too far ahead, or that Archbishop Lefebvre proved by organizing the Society of St Pius X what could still be done in 1970. But I do think that Fr. Calmel was right in the long run.
One might say, watching what happened to the Society last year, that it was bound to run into the sand.
Archbishop Lefebvre, like Pope St Pius X, conducted a marvelous rearguard action, but one notes how much less the Archbishop could achieve, coming70 years later than the Pope, and now we are 40 years on from the Archbishop.
In a world marching to its ruin the realization of Fr. Calmel’s prophecy could not be indefinitely delayed.
Dear readers, if we wish to stay with Our Lord, we have no choice but to gird our loins. In my opinion, Fr Calmel and Fr Rioult are right. Mother of God, Help of Christians, help !
Kyrie eleison.
Contact Us:
Please write to the applicable email address from among the following with your questions, comments, or concerns:
letters@dinoscopus.org
- for comments to the author about a particular issue of Eleison Comments.
info@dinoscopus.org
- for general questions or comments.
admin@dinoscopus.org
- to resolve technical concerns or problems.
editorial@dinoscopus.org
- for back issues of Eleison Comments.
Donate
While Eleison Comments is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below or by contacting:
donate@dinoscopus.org
© 2011-2013 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.
A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby.
-
It would be nice to think that ABL, knowing his countrymen's capacity for duplicity, chose Bp. W as the English thorn in the sides of those who were expected to defect after his demise and take his organisation with them. Another Englishman could take pride in that. And in the political sphere, it is a joy to see the bishop upset the comfortable lives of clerics and remind them that their role is as much political as it is spiritual. In this respect he took his cue from the archbishop who had a lot to say about post-war politics. As for monastic gurus contemplating their navels and naively retreating into themselves when the enemy comes banging on the door, they should learn to take up the sword as well as the prayer book.
It is good to admit that other groups are needed to fight the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr outside the narrowed confines of the curent SSPX. To be a true Catholic is to be a hostile citizen and the harbingers of the anti-Christ ensconced in Rome are a prime target because they help buttress the doomed Western establishment. Non-Catholics have a role too and the bishop recognises this. One almost feels sorry for the suicidal pact with the devil that most inside the new church have entered into. Traditionalists should always be fighters .... and please save me from lawyers!
-
It would be nice to think that ABL, knowing his countrymen's capacity for duplicity, chose Bp. W as the English thorn in the sides of those who were expected to defect after his demise and take his organisation with them. Another Englishman could take pride in that.
Would that the majority of Englishmen could hearken to the days of Merry ol' England as do you, Wessex. The entire world would be a better place.
And in the political sphere, it is a joy to see the bishop upset the comfortable lives of clerics and remind them that their role is as much political as it is spiritual.
Nor is he unaware of the implications. The days of martyrdom are not too far over the horizon. Already in the USA the government has docuмents that define a 'terrorist' as anyone who thinks like +W. He would be our prime exemplar of their principal candidate, perhaps on par with certain Southern Baptists -- although with them, it's more a case of "Evangelical Christian" and "anti-Catholic."
But everything else (in the eyes of the government) is the same. That's because they're ignorant of the Faith of Catholics.
In this respect he took his cue from the archbishop who had a lot to say about post-war politics. As for monastic gurus contemplating their navels and naively retreating into themselves when the enemy comes banging on the door, they should learn to take up the sword as well as the prayer book.
It is good to admit that other groups are needed to fight the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr outside the narrowed confines of the curent SSPX. To be a true Catholic is to be a hostile citizen and the harbingers of the anti-Christ ensconced in Rome are a prime target because they help buttress the doomed Western establishment. Non-Catholics have a role too and the bishop recognises this. One almost feels sorry for the suicidal pact with the devil that most inside the new church have entered into. Traditionalists should always be fighters .... and please save me from lawyers!
Lawyers are inhuman.................. typical of vultures.
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/a3/f2/2b/a3f22ba54f3e8ad9cf1bd6471b872dc5.jpg)
.
-
.Would that Catholics today follow the ideological example of the great Fr. Rioult insofar as here he gives the example of Catholics being able to work together toward this august common goal, which is the preservation of the Catholic Faith.
Basically, whoever said that sedevacantism is among the Resistance to stay, is correct.
-
As for monastic gurus contemplating their navels and naively retreating into themselves when the enemy comes banging on the door, they should learn to take up the sword as well as the prayer book.
I know England jettisoned its monastic tradition when Henry VIII led its revolution several centuries before the French had theirs, but monks actually contemplate the Most Holy Trinity and the Blessed Mother, not their navels.
-
.Would that Catholics today follow the ideological example of the great Fr. Rioult insofar as here he gives the example of Catholics being able to work together toward this august common goal, which is the preservation of the Catholic Faith.
Basically, whoever said that sedevacantism is among the Resistance to stay, is correct.
That issue is of little importance. You could have saved a lot of time by just saying that, since that is all you came here for.
What is important is all the souls living in adultery now due to the annulment industry which you participate in. The sin of the conciliar church annulment industry is all that one needs to see to realize why all of the bishops have lost their minds.
When the bishop told him some bazaar novelty, the now famous traditionalist, Fr. DePauw answered with that accent of his:
"You'll pardon me your eminence, but you've either lost the Faith, or you've lost your marbles".
-
The sin of the conciliar church annulment industry is all that one needs to see to realize why all of the bishops have lost their minds.
Obviously the marriage tribunal system is of great interest to you. As far as I know, nothing in canon law prohibits you from having an opinion on the matter.
-
If one were to summarise the internal enemy, you would combine three elements: the vested interests of the professional class, the power of monopolistic corporations and the legal protection granted to expanding government agencies. Externally, you have these controlling groups working together against the interests of their subjects and to cut off escape routes. This presupposes the creation of a global hierarchy and one can guess the principal players here. I heard the latest development is the creation of a new overriding entity, free of all regulation, national or international, that assists the globalists
with their agenda. This may explain why big things happen without much official comment or ending up with bungled damage limitation responses at the local level. One such draconian measure is to turn bank depositors into shareholders, thus saving banks that are in trouble but not their deposits.
-
It would be nice to think that ABL, knowing his countrymen's capacity for duplicity, chose Bp. W as the English thorn in the sides of those who were expected to defect after his demise and take his organisation with them. Another Englishman could take pride in that. And in the political sphere, it is a joy to see the bishop upset the comfortable lives of clerics and remind them that their role is as much political as it is spiritual. In this respect he took his cue from the archbishop who had a lot to say about post-war politics. As for monastic gurus contemplating their navels and naively retreating into themselves when the enemy comes banging on the door, they should learn to take up the sword as well as the prayer book.
It is good to admit that other groups are needed to fight the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr outside the narrowed confines of the curent SSPX. To be a true Catholic is to be a hostile citizen and the harbingers of the anti-Christ ensconced in Rome are a prime target because they help buttress the doomed Western establishment. Non-Catholics have a role too and the bishop recognises this. One almost feels sorry for the suicidal pact with the devil that most inside the new church have entered into. Traditionalists should always be fighters .... and please save me from lawyers!
Good post.
I respectfully disagree with Pete Vere's dislike for Bishop Williamson's willingness to enter the social/political sphere.
It would be legitimate to oppose his involvement with this or that political organization, or historical view.
But not legitimate to say it is beyond the province of a priest or bishop to step into those arenas.
I recall Bishop Fulton Sheen, Fr. Coughlin, Fr. Denis Fahey, etc all becoming enemies of the world for doing so, but none of their superiors ever thought they were overstepping the bounds of their vocations.
More likely, people who object to such things have been wound pretty tightly into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr perspective of seeing things, and therefore react with an exaggerated sense of fearfulness to read a cleric doing so.
In my indult days, that at least was the cause of my apprehensions pertaining to Bishop Williamson.
But those apprehensions all disappeared when I read my first Fr. Fahey book.
-
Sadly, I agree with Pete Vere that (based on this endorsement by Bishop Williamson of Fr. Rioult's tradcuмenist strategy) sedevacantism will be an increasing temptation amongst the resistance.
Even though the resistance was willing to remain on the battlefield, rather than within their cozy enclaves, nevertheless they too will still crave a sense of normalcy.
Sedevacantist chapels/organizations, with their regular Masses, chapels, seminaries, etc can provide that.
But the 800lb gorilla will always be present for those who head in that direction as a sting to their consciences.
-
Even though the resistance was willing to remain on the battlefield, rather than within their cozy enclaves, nevertheless they too will still crave a sense of normalcy.
You can count on the SSPX-Marian Corps to fight to the death.
-
[Dom Gerard of LeBarroux's] conception of Tradition is that its restoration must go hand-in-hand with the restoration of Christendom and the restoration of the monastic life...
Yet he allowed his monastery to say a Mass offensive to God.
He had the trappings, smells, and bells of tradition, but not integral tradition itself.
He had monastic discipline, but not integral Catholic doctrine.
It was (and is) a compromised endeavor.
And his monastery is now trying to show the SSPX that Vatican II's religious liberty is compatible with Tradition:
Vere said that theological work to show the SSPX the continuity of the Second Vatican Council with prior Church teachings continues to advance, especially with a “benchmark work” on religious freedom by Dom Basile Valuet, a Benedictine theologian of the abbey of Le Barroux (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-door-for-full-reconciliation-is-not-closed-with-Pope-Francis) in France.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sspx-and-the-church-dialogue-in-limbo/#ixzz2nekHYkSJ
The following is an extensive article and critical synopsis of the objections of Abbe Schmidberger's staff to Vatican II. "This is what keeps us and Rome apart"
While undoubtedly some texts do conform with tradition, ... there is also one irreconcilable docuмent: on religious liberty; and there are so many other texts which one famous theologian described as "full of errors and mistakes" and which no one, especially the Pope, interprets in the light of tradition. For, these texts have other points of reference, which require analysis.
(Archbishop Lefebvre)
We are forced to choose. Naturally, in our time of liberalism many people cannot understand that we can defend opinions that can seem “outdated,” “antiquated,” “mediaeval,” etc. But the doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of the Church. When the Popes condemned liberty of thought, liberty of conscience, liberty of religions, they explained why they condemned them. Leo XIII wrote long encyclicals on the subject. One only has to read them [to understand the reasons for these condemnations]; the same applies for Pope Pius IX and Pope Gregory XVI.
Again, all of this is based on the Church’s fundamental principles, on the fact that the Church is truth, the only truth. This is the way it is; you either believe it or you don’t, of course, but when you believe, then you have to draw the consequences. That is why, personally, I do not believe that the declarations of the Council on liberty of conscience, liberty of thought, and liberty of religion can be compatible with what the popes taught in the past. Therefore we have to choose. Either we choose what the popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church or we choose what was said by the Council. But we cannot choose both at the same time since they are contradictory.
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned)
(Although I'm curious why Le Barroux needs to bother convincing Bishop Fellay; he already said that the religious liberty of VII "is reconcilable (http://www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012)" with Catholic Tradition:
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to ... the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is ... reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, ...
I guess they mean to convince the remaining holdouts within the SSPX? :confused1:)
-
Sadly, I agree with Pete Vere that (based on this endorsement by Bishop Williamson of Fr. Rioult's tradcuмenist strategy) sedevacantism will be an increasing temptation amongst the resistance.
Even though the resistance was willing to remain on the battlefield, rather than within their cozy enclaves, nevertheless they too will still crave a sense of normalcy.
Sedevacantist chapels/organizations, with their regular Masses, chapels, seminaries, etc can provide that.
But the 800lb gorilla will always be present for those who head in that direction as a sting to their consciences.
I never understood the urgency of continuing sede and non-sede in-fighting among genuinely traditional Catholics (whom I define as firmly rejecting Vatican II, unlike Menzingen). Neither side obeys the wayward leadership, nor can any of us penetrate the opacity of clerical masonry in the "official" church to see what is really happening.
Neither side is proposing a solution. If the non-sede's sought regularization with masonic Rome or the sede's elected a new pope, there might at least be a plausible reason for maintaining the split. As the matter stands, a continued opposition and refusal to cooperate would be self-defeating (and therefore, possibly sinful).
As I (non-dogmatically) see it, the sede position should require electing a new pope. Currently, I see no way to improve upon previous trad attempts at conclavism. Therefore, I chose not to embrace sedevacantism.
A dogmatic sede would insist that a non-sede Catholic position should require regularization with Rome. I chose the arguable paradox of "recognize and resist" over (what I consider) a contradiction of sedevacantism with no future plans for papal election.
Even so, I have no problem with sede's as long as they refrain from trying to enforce the doctrine of no-salvation-outside-sedevacantism upon me.
-
That in turn causes me to question his conception of "traditionalism" which one might find within the covers of the book you are recommending.
His conception of Tradition is that its restoration must go hand-in-hand with the restoration of Christendom and the restoration of the monastic life.
Certainly history would prove him correct, especially on the second point. If there is one thing Protestant Reformers, Communists, French Revolutionaries and Islamic extremists have in common - their attacks against Catholic faithful and their attempts to suppress the Catholic faith always begin with a suppression of monasteries and the monastic life.
Thus the state of the traditional monastic life with a given society is one of the best barometers of the state of Catholic Tradition within that society.
Yet he allowed his monastery to say a Mass offensive to God.
He had the trappings, smells, and bells of tradition, but not integral tradition itself.
He had monastic discipline, but not integral Catholic doctrine.
It was (and is) a compromised endeavor.
Beware of Roman Snakes (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2732)
It is not gracious to speak ill of the dead. "De mortuis nil nisi bonum," said the Latins. But where the Faith is at stake, and where a man, apparently until his death, took a stand on the Faith which can gravely mislead the faithful, it is not exactly speaking ill of him to remind the faithful of his mistake. If his soul is now in Purgatory or Heaven, he cannot mind the faithful being told the truth on the occasion of his death. Certainly I will not mind if over my grave a wiser man than I re-directs souls towards the Truth. Therefore Dom Gérard's peace should hardly be disturbed if, in a Society of St. Pius X publication like The Angelus, we go back on why he and Archbishop Lefebvre parted company in 1988 on the occasion of the episcopal consecrations. With those consecrations Dom Gérard frankly disagreed, and a few weeks later he came to a separate agreement of his own with Rome. On at least one occasion soon afterwards the Archbishop was observed to be weeping over Dom Gérard's decision.
They were not sentimental tears. Up till that point Dom Gérard's monastery had been a power-house of Traditional resistance to the Conciliar Revolution. How much stronger that resistance would have been if Dom Gérard had not defected! But from that point on his monastery slowly turned into a defender of that Revolution. One thinks, for instance, of the huge several-volume defence of Vatican II's deadly doctrine on Religious Liberty, published several years ago by a monk of Le Barroux.
In fact Dom Gérard had already in 1984 sought to come to an agreement with Conciliar Rome, but he was persuaded to back off, perhaps, amongst other things, by words written to him at that time by the Archbishop: "Beware of Roman snakes!" However Dom Gérard believed that Cardinal (then) Ratzinger was a man one could deal with, so he cut his own deal, and most of his monks slid into the embrace of Conciliar Rome, where they have remained ever since...
How had it happened? A priest friend of the SSPX and former monk of Dom Gérard, who knew him well, has an interesting and convincing explanation. Here is the heart of it:
As Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out, when Dom Gérard quit his monastery in Tournay, which was turning Conciliar, in order to found the Traditional monastery of St. Mary Magdalene, his motivation was mainly to maintain monastic and liturgical tradition. He did not sufficiently grasp the most important theological aspects of the crisis of the Church.
In addition, his intuitive rather than scholastic way of thinking was liable to make him change position suddenly in a way that betrayed his lack of a thorough doctrinal formation. In fact Dom Gérard had never received, or else never assimilated, a formation of the kind called for by Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi. St. Thomas Aquinas and scholastic thinking were far from occupying their due place in Dom Gérard's formation. (End of our friend's quote)
As a French priest used to say who collaborated closely with the Archbishop at the time of the Council, "One may not care for the rigors of Catholic doctrine, but in the Catholic Church very little can be achieved without it." Many a seminarian will testify to how arduous the study of St. Thomas can be, but the ruins of the Catholic Church all around us testify to the wisdom of St. Pius X's insistence in Pascendi on the study of St. Thomas Aquinas as the very first remedy to the mental sickness of modernism.
Soon after Dom Gérard decided to go over to Conciliar Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote:
The consequences are from now on unavoidable. The SSPX will have no further relations with Le Barroux, and we will be warning all our faithful to give no more support to a Congregation which is henceforth in the hands of our enemies, the enemies of Our Lord and His Universal Kingship.
Strong clear words. May Dom Gérard have understood their truth before he died, so that now his soul may be resting in peace.[/size]
-
I realize the topic of Le Barroux is way off-topic from the original post, but as long as it came up, I might as well post this too, which at least should have some interest, not only with respect to Peter Vere's earlier comments, but also re: the situation today, even if not directly related to the OP.
September 1989
An Interview with Fr. Cyprian, O.S.B.
Le Barroux was a Traditional Benedictine monastery affiliated with Archbishop Lefebvre until last July's Consecrations. The Archbishop had been the one ordaining their priests, and members of the Society often found Le Barroux to be an excellent place to make a retreat. After working so closely with Archbishop Lefebvre and supporting the consecration of new bishops in the work "Five Reasons in Favor of the Consecrations," the abbot, Dom Gerard suddenly did an about-face after Cardinal Mayer visited the monastery. Fr. Cyprian details the events that led up to this sudden break with Archbishop Lefebvre, and his own eventual decision to leave Le Barroux in September of 1988.
Q. Father, most of our readers know you as an American who became a Benedictine monk at the Le Barroux monastery in France where you lived from late 1980 until you left under tragic circuмstances in September, 1988. Father, why did you go to Le Barroux in the first place?
A. I left my work at the Society's school at St. Mary's, KS to go to Le Barroux after a long search for the true monastic life. For several years I had been visiting various monasteries in America and then I found out about the SSPX. Through the Society I rediscovered the traditional practice of the Faith and from that moment everything began to fall into place. I went to St. Mary's and heard Archbishop Lefebvre speak during a pilgrimage. His approach to the crisis in the Church made a tremendous amount of sense. I asked the priest of St. Mary's if a monastery existed that shared that same approach. He told me that there was only one traditional monastery in the whole world. It was Benedictine and it was in absolute harmony with the Archbishop and the Society. So the choice was easy to make. I went to France that same year in the fall of 1980.
Q. Father, why did you leave?
A. Several monks as well as myself left the monastery at Le Barroux right after the consecrations at Ecône because from that summer of 1988 onward, things had radically changed at our monastery.
For the monks at Le Barroux, two opposing events took place even though they revolved around the one historical event of the consecrations themselves. First, our superiors had just finished a long, careful preparation of our community of monks and nuns, as well as our faithful and benefactors, so that everyone understood exactly what would take place on June 30th. They even went so far as to publish a brochure entitled, "Five Reasons in Favor of the Consecrations" so as to dispel any worries among our followers.
Then, all of a sudden, only weeks before the consecrations would take place, the totally unexpected arrival of Cardinal Mayer and Msgr. Perl was announced to the community. A secret council of monks was immediately called together and for the next few days of the Cardinal's surprise visit negotiations took place twice a day in private. The rest of the community being excluded from these meetings, we had to wait until the evening Chapter gathering that we have each day before Compline to hear any news of the secret meetings. Dom Gerard only asked us for our prayers, saying that something very good was about to happen to the monastery.
After Cardinal Mayer and Msgr. Perl left to return to Rome, our superiors had been successfully dissuaded from their support of the upcoming consecrations. Dom Gerard then announced to all of us, with an air of victory, that the monastery would soon be regularized with Rome; reinstated into the Benedictine confederation, and that as soon as a letter arrived from the Nuncio in Paris, all our priests would no longer be under the pains of the suspension "a divinis" and the other irregularities incurred through their being ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. All of these so-called wondrous things were brought to our doorstep because the Archbishop had denounced the protocol of May 5th, and now Cardinal Mayer had just given it to us instead.
Q. Father, didn't these words arouse a little suspicion among the monks?
A. Many of us were very worried and were wondering what exactly must have transpired during those secret council meetings with Cardinal Mayer and Msgr. Perl. Later on we all found out. There was a catch to all of this. The condition placed on the monastery's regularization with Rome was this: no more Lefebvre; period. Archbishop Lefebvre cold no longer have any contact with Le Barroux: he could no longer be our bishop. In other words, no more ordinations for our candidates to the priesthood, no more consecrations for our nuns, no more dedications of our buildings and churches, no more confirmations for our faithful from anyone in the Society of St. Pius X, and so forth. But Cardinal Mayer finally had a change of heart and conceded that the Archbishop could maybe visit the monastery as a mere guest like any layman.
Q. Given those conditions I don't see why he would ever want to return. Didn't any of the monks or nuns seem surprised by those conditions?
A. Many of the monks seemed very shocked; it seemed too absurd to believe. But now all of a sudden our superiors were doing some very fast talking to try and make everything sound reasonable. We began hearing things like this: 'After all, Msgr. Lefebvre is only a bishop like any other in the Church, and besides, from our viewpoint we really shouldn't favor one bishop over another.' Now we had free choice of any bishop who seemed to qualify for our requirements of orthodoxy" - any bishop at all except, of course, Archbishop Lefebvre. And whenever the name Lefebvre was brought up, immediately there were connotations and accusations of schism and excommunication from our superiors. For some strange reason, Dom Gerard came out of the secret talks with Cardinal Mayer asking us to pray hard for poor old rebellious Marcel Lefebvre who was now on the brink of an irreparable schism with Rome.
Q. It really seems like somewhere along the line the superiors of Le Barroux made a drastic about-face in their position regarding the consecrations.
A. Yes, and that is precisely what became, for several monks, the problem of conscience compelling them to leave the monastery. The same Dom Gerard who, until June, 1988 always took the public defense of the Archbishop, was now rabidly opposed to him. Now all of a sudden, we were hearing such things as "the Archbishop is a senile old man who has clearly shown signs of losing his mind, and he is nothing less than obsessed by his hatred of Vatican II, and he is formally schismatic and most definitely excommunicated. All he wants to do is play polemics and dialectics with Rome, etc., etc." I couldn't believe my ears! And now, according to Le Barroux's theologian, "all marriages performed by priests of the SSPX are invalid and no Catholic in his right frame of mind can follow the Archbishop."
Q. But Father, we read that Dom Gerard announced the consecrations as a kind of "prophetic act," to use his own words. Did he really say that?
A. Oh yes; and Fr. Joseph cites him in his famous letter he published in the French Catholic paper, "Monde et Vie" to explain why he, too, left Le Barroux. I recall Dom Gerard saying that the decision to proceed with the consecrations against all apparent opposition was indeed a prophetic act, and that the Archbishop is a saint having enlightenment from heaven to go through with them. In contrast to such compliments, we were now hearing the same Dom Gerard denounce the same Msgr. Lefebvre as a schismatic, etc., as I mentioned earlier.
Q. Did any other monks leave Le Barroux in protest?
A. It was never in a spirit of protest that anyone left Le Barroux. It was something much more serious than simply trying to prove a point. Monks do not leave their monastery and abandon their vows of stability and obedience merely in order to try and prove something. All those monks who left were, in conscience, left with no alternative. It had become virtually impossible to support Msgr. Lefebvre and remain living at Le Barroux at the same time.
Q. But you say that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained some twenty priests of your community. Didn't they disapprove of Dom Gerard's new stand?
A. Only six of the twenty left. Three in Brazil, two in France, plus myself and one other who is still wavering back and forth. Also, there is a professed brother, and an American novice who is now a seminarian in Winona. I do not count the novices and postulants in our monastery in Brazil who remained with their superior, Fr. Thomas Aquinas, when he refused to accept the Rome deal.
Q. And what about the nuns? Aren't there three Americans in the convent?
A. Yes, and one of them wrote me a letter after I left. It was clear to me that, after I re-read all the adjectives she put to my name, she knew nothing of the truth about what really happened at Le Barroux. The nuns only know what they are told by their superiors. Normally, this would be absolutely legitimate, but under the present circuмstances it is very sad. Now there is no way to get through to them. All mail and phone calls are screened.
Q. Father, we read in other publications various arguments in support of the present situation at the monastery. They would lead us to believe that things really aren't all that bad at Le Barroux. Could this be the reason why so few monks have left?
A. I'll relate to you one more little incident.
A few days prior to my departure, I had a rather heated discussion with my superior. He knew I was still very perplexed by the sudden drastic change in the monastery's orientation. He knew I remained strongly in favor of the Archbishop and that I wasn't swallowing any of the excuses I was hearing. That particular day, one of the priests walked out, and on his way out the door he said I was about to do the same. I was summoned to my superior's room where he said to me somewhat furiously, "My dear Father, either you are with us or you are against us; which one is it?" On that very same day news of Fr. Thomas' refusal of the Rome deal was announced. Fr. Thomas decided to stand firm as the superior of the Brazilian monastery, complaining that he had been completely eclipsed from the secret meetings held with Cardinal Mayer. Dom Gerard, who was about to catch a plane to Brazil "in order to rescue the monastery from Fr. Thomas and his pirates," gave us a report of the incident before leaving. After commenting on the apparent disobedience and revolutionary behavior of the Brazilian monks, he concluded by exclaiming, "Now we see the true work of Lefebvre: he destroys monasteries by turning the monks against their father!" He said this because Fr. Thomas called Econe to ask Msgr. Lefebvre's advice before publicly rejecting the Rome deal to maintain possession of his monastery.
The gist of these incidents is this: We are now seen by the community as monks who have discarded their sacred vows of obedience by preferring to remain supportive of the Archbishop, and thereby succuмb to the worldly interests of the Church actuality in preference to being good monks. We had all been exhorted several times to make the "little sacrifice" of mortifying our natural human attachment to the Archbishop in order to be more supernaturally docile to our superior and more faithful to God through our vow of obedience.
Q. In other words you were being ordered to shut up, close your eyes and obey?
A. Yes. Obedience in this case was supposed to overrule all else. And when our superiors were reminded that it was a question of the Faith being in danger by going along with the Church of Vatican II, the reply was this: "That is merely a simplistic slogan typical of uncultured people."
Q. Did all the monks who heard Dom Gerard's account of the Brazil incident really believe what they were hearing?
A. Of course not. Many of us were suspicious that someone might be twisting the truth. Several of us felt sorry for Fr. Thomas Aquinas because his case was grossly mishandled by the superiors in France. Now, according to the Rome deal, he could have no more relations with the diocese of Campos, which is Bishop Castro Mayer and all of his priests who up until then, were helping to found the monastery in Brazil. Just as Rome prohibited any contact between Le Barroux and Msgr. Lefebvre, so too, contact was prohibited between Santa Cruz and Bishop de Castro Mayer. Fr. Thomas was never told what was going on in clear terms. His reaction was more than understandable.
Q. Father, all of this news is most saddening. How do you explain the speed with which your superiors made a complete about-face in their support of the Archbishop?
A. The monks who left, as well as many concerned benefactors, feel as though a long discreet preparation was made for the present position of Le Barroux. They do not think the superiors were ever completely convinced that Msgr. Lefebvre had acted appropriately in his dealings with Rome ever since 1976 and the famous suspension "a divinis." They have followed the archbishop reluctantly, cringing every time he criticizes the strange behavior of our Holy Father. Many of them say the Archbishop must be sedevacantist.
Q. You showed us a clause in the Rule of St. Benedict requiring the vote of the entire community before any important decision is made. Didn't your superior comply with this when he presented the protocol to all the monks?
A. Apparently he didn't feel this decision was important enough to consult the whole community. He secretly picked certain monks to attend the negotiations. No one except themselves knew about it. The decision was made immediately when Msgr. Perl threatened Dom Gerard that, if he did not decide right away, the monastery would never be regularized. Such is what one of the council monks confided to me. I was not allowed to attend the secret meetings.
[why am I getting so much déjà vu? :confused1: ]
Q. Such a decision, as to altogether abandon the Archbishop and almost twenty years of collaboration with the SSPX, did not require the consent of the entire community?
A. Not in our Superior's thinking.
Q. Didn't any of the monks begin wondering when they saw their brethren walking out the door?
A. The departure of the six monks from Le Barroux, and the breaking away of the community in Brazil, was portrayed as something which had nothing at all to do with the consecrations at Econe and the protocol which dissolved our relationship with the Archbishop.
Q. Maybe things were not so explicit at Le Barroux in the summer of 1988?
A. The monastery in Brazil was considered to have been taken over by a band of "possessed pirates" (Fr. Thomas and his monks). Each of the other monks who left was discounted as not having a real vocation, being mentally retarded, or some other incredible accusation. Had we all left the same day, things surely would have been more difficult to cover-up before the eyes of the community.
Q. What conclusion do you draw, Father?
A. I think the conclusion is possibly threefold. First; the radical change in position of Le Barroux regarding the crisis in the Church - this change became most acutely manifest during the summer of the consecrations at Econe.
Secondly, there is all of a sudden, a pernicious campaign against the Archbishop and the SSPX.
Thirdly, the strange abuse of the vow of obedience.
Q. Father, would you mind elaborating very briefly?
A. First, regarding the change at Le Barroux: there is presently a definite opening-up to the ideas of Vatican II, especially to the Religious Liberty of Vatican II. This is central to the revolutionary theology of the Council. The monastery's theologian has made a very lengthy exposé of the question and now concludes that Vatican II was right, and that Msgr. Lefebvre's position is unjustified and doubtful at best. And when I left, I was hearing things from the superiors such as, "Where is the real crisis in the Church?"; now there is a flat rejection of the Archbishop's entire approach to the crisis. For Le Barroux, the position of Archbishop Lefebvre is no longer worth the consideration of intelligent Catholics.
Secondly, the anti-campaign launched during the summer of 1988: when I joined the monastery in 1980 the Archbishop was revered there as a champion of the true Catholic faith chosen by God to save the Church from apostasy. When I left in 1988, that same Archbishop was now "a senile old man; the leader of a sect vowed to religious fanaticism. " The man who gave the monastery most of its benefactors, the man who sent the monastery most of its vocations - that man is now its enemy. He no longer has any value to Le Barroux, nor to anyone who wishes to remain Catholic, as it is now said there. Now Le Barroux's needs are entrusted to the Church of Vatican II.
Q. And it seems like the obedience you were being ordered to practice has many parallels with the obedience imposed on all of us in the early 1970's; when the bishops were forcing their dioceses to take on the bizarre changes said to be promulgated by Vatican II.
A. True. Neither of these two kinds of so-called obedience has any semblance to real obedience. It is all mere double-talk.
Q. Father, what do you intend to do now?
A. I have chosen to remain unchanged in my support of the archbishop and the SSPX. I would rather continue just as I started out at LeBarroux in 1980. Now I'll simply put one of the Archbishop's favorite expressions into practice:
"On continue..." It means, "Let us simply go on..."
Q. You will remain a Benedictine monk?
A. Just after I left Le Barroux in September of last year, I went to Econe to talk to the archbishop about my future. I offered to join the Society as a gesture of my gratitude to him. He only laughed and said, "You are a monk. You must continue as a monk of the Church and leave the rest in God's hands."
Q. There is a rumor saying you will be starting a Benedictine monastery in Kentucky.
A. It is only a rumor, but if any young men are interested in the monastic life such as we lived it in Europe, I am considering teaching them what little I know so as to pass on the tradition. If anything materializes, it will be in complete harmony with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. God will then show us where to go from there. I leave all the rest up to His Providence.
Fr. Cyprian, O.S.B.
1730 North Stillwell Road
Boston, Kentucky 40107
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=1651
-
Sadly, I agree with Pete Vere that (based on this endorsement by Bishop Williamson of Fr. Rioult's tradcuмenist strategy) sedevacantism will be an increasing temptation amongst the resistance.
I think the thing to remember Sean - and here you have demonstrated the principle well - is that one need not necessarily like a conclusion to recognize it as reality. Am I thrilled with the Resistance making common cause with sedevacantism?
Not particularly.
Do I think Mgr Williamson himself will ever openly and fully embrace sedevacantism?
In my younger years, I held it as a possibility. Today, I see him as bringing Resistance faithful to the doorstep, and visiting on the front porch, but I suspect he himself is too old to cross the threshold.
Regardless, there is not much Mgr. Williamson's reported internal critics among Resistance priests can do or say. The bishop has always been honest about his openness to the possibility of sede vacante after Pope John Paul II's departure from the papacy.
Moreover, he is the only bishop friendly to the Resistance. Sooner or later the Resistance will need to confirm its faithful and ordain new priests.
-
Dom Gerard suddenly did an about-face after Cardinal Mayer visited the monastery.
This reason for Dom Gerard's change of heart differs from that given by Vere.
-
As I (non-dogmatically) see it, the sede position should require electing a new pope. Currently, I see no way to improve upon previous trad attempts at conclavism. Therefore, I chose not to embrace sedevacantism.
I think this is where sedeprivationism (material pope vs. formal pope) as well as the sede-agnostic position come in. If one recognizes the Pope as a material pope, or if one is unsure whether or not he is pope, then there is no reason to attempt to elect another one.
As far as doctrinaire sedevacantists, even then I can see an argument for not attempting to elect a new pope, in that a new pope would have to be universally accepted as such. Thus the question becomes how to insure the integrity and universal acceptance of the election process.
Otherwise, I would tend to agree with you that to an increasing number of Resistance faithful, it makes little sense to continue warring against non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.
-
Heck no. It is exclusively his words and his actions. In terms of integrity, I consider Mgr Williamson one of the most honest and candid individuals I (and others I know) have ever dealt with--although my dealings with him were many years ago.
What is more important than honesty and integrity? I contend that the SG of SSPX has little of either. I tend to follow the bishop, because as you say, the bishop has both. For me the split arose out of actions taken by Menzingen, and strange, dark behavior on the part of Bp. Fellay. As I look about at the varirous traditional Catholic clergy, I find few whom I choose to follow, certainly no bishops. right now we're stuck with Bp. Williamson, for better or for worse.
-
As I (non-dogmatically) see it, the sede position should require electing a new pope. Currently, I see no way to improve upon previous trad attempts at conclavism. Therefore, I chose not to embrace sedevacantism.
I think this is where sedeprivationism (material pope vs. formal pope) as well as the sede-agnostic position come in. If one recognizes the Pope as a material pope, or if one is unsure whether or not he is pope, then there is no reason to attempt to elect another one.
As far as doctrinaire sedevacantists, even then I can see an argument for not attempting to elect a new pope, in that a new pope would have to be universally accepted as such. Thus the question becomes how to insure the integrity and universal acceptance of the election process.
Otherwise, I would tend to agree with you that to an increasing number of Resistance faithful, it makes little sense to continue warring against non-doctrinaire sedevacantism.
I can envision various scenarios, but cannot see through the masonic smokescreen enough to obtain information needed for determining the proper position with certainty. I doubt that differences over sedevacantism would have been enough to cause a split if not for the property disputes between the society and "the Nine."
The dispute reminds me of supposed theological objections to the papacy held by Easter Orthodox that likely originate in non-theological resentment of the pope's alleged cooperation with the 1204 sack of Constantinople.
-
hollingsworth:
Since we are agreed concerning Mgr Williamson's honesty and integrity, permit me to focus upon where we disagree:
What is more important than honesty and integrity? I contend that the SG of SSPX has little of either. I tend to follow the bishop, because as you say, the bishop has both. For me the split arose out of actions taken by Menzingen, and strange, dark behavior on the part of Bp. Fellay.
It is not my place to judge Mgr Fellay's honesty and integrity, although certainly I respect him even though I disagree with his actions in slowing down negotiations with the Holy See.
Having said that, I think the current division between Mgr Fellay and Mgr Williamson, which encompasses their respective followers, is that of an honest recognition each represents a different school of Mgr Lefebvre's thought. It is no secret that in building a worldwide traditionalist movement Mgr Lefebvre held together different schools of thought. It is also no secret that he often wavered back-and-forth between each school of thought.
With his passing there was simply no historical figure of Mgr Lefebvre's personage to hold these different schools of thought together. For me the surprise was not the current split between the FSSPX and the Resistance, but that the centre held for so longer after Mgr Lefebvre's death.
-
I can envision various scenarios, but cannot see through the masonic smokescreen enough to obtain information needed for determining the proper position with certainty. I doubt that differences over sedevacantism would have been enough to cause a split if not for the property disputes between the society and "the Nine."
From what I was told several years ago by a couple of individuals who were among the nine, the major difference was over property - that is, whether to centralize it under SSPX control or whether to leave it decentralized in the hands of local laity. Some of the nine were hardline sedevacantists (but not doctrinaire), however, others - mainly those who became SSPV - I am told were more "sede-agnostic". That is, they did not feel competent to judge one way or another, but felt at the same time that the crisis in the Church was serious enough to act.
From what I was told, the sede vs. non-sede conflict only became more important as the original property dispute drew on.
-
The great tragedy is that bp fellay was ever consecrated in the first place...the second misfortune for the SSPX was that he became Sup Gen...If Bp Fellay would only apologize deeply for his incompetence and lack of complete candor when dealing w/the faithful of the SSPX..we would all certainly, warmly forgive him and wish him God's help to do devout penance...
-
The great tragedy is that bp fellay was ever consecrated in the first place...
He was one of the four chosen by Mgr Lefebvre. As were Mgr. TdM and Mgr dG who support him. All three had been seminarians formed by Mgr Lefebvre, ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre, and had exercised their priesthood under the Archbishop post-ordination.
the second misfortune for the SSPX was that he became Sup Gen...
Again, Mgr Lefebvre's intent had been that the bishops not be elected Sup Gen, but remain obedient to priests in the FSSPX's highest offices. The FSSPX general chapter (which I believe included Mgr Williamson) chose a different path merely two years after the Archbishop's passing.
Keep in mind that if Mgr. Lefebvre had wanted a bishop in charge of the FSSPX, he likely would have consecrated Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Aulagnier and Fr. Lorans.
-
Well, what the dispute really boils down to is the absence of implementations of the virtues the priests include in their sermons (or should do so) on Sunday. That among these virtues is humility, honesty, and the ability to be and act in a humble manner. One can be a leader and hold these virtues, and we all lack them to some degree, but mostly SSPX leadership and General Chapter members who acquiesce to the lack of virtue have not shown them during the crisus.
-
Well obviously the choice of Bp Fellay was a very bad choice....The choice of an adamant Americanist, Fr. Kelly, as American Dist Sup was a bad choice...no one is perfect...Bp Fellay was supposedly chosen bc some wealthy backer wanted a Swiss bp...he got one..and we rcvd a dormant virus. :facepalm:
-
Bp Fellay was supposedly chosen bc some wealthy backer wanted a Swiss bp...he got one..and we rcvd a dormant virus. :facepalm:
I know Mgr Fellay is not your favorite of the four bishops. Nevertheless, one should be cautious about making such charges, even if only spoken out of frustration.
Mgr. Lefebvre had many faults. However, nothing in his storied history suggests that his faults extended to integrity or character. Quite the opposite, actually. Therefore I doubt that Mgr Lefebvre would allow himself to be bought off by the wishes of a wealthy Swiss backer, since simony is one of the worst sins a bishop can commit - especially that of the episcopate.
-
Bp Fellay was supposedly chosen bc some wealthy backer wanted a Swiss bp...he got one..and we rcvd a dormant virus. :facepalm:
I know Mgr Fellay is not your favorite of the four bishops. Nevertheless, one should be cautious about making such charges, even if only spoken out of frustration.
Mgr. Lefebvre had many faults. However, nothing in his storied history suggests that his faults extended to integrity or character. Quite the opposite, actually. Therefore I doubt that Mgr Lefebvre would allow himself to be bought off by the wishes of a wealthy Swiss backer, since simony is one of the worst sins a bishop can commit - especially that of the episcopate.
Excusa me... Mr. Vere,
You, who have done more damage to Traditional Catholicism than 10 modernist clerics, come on this forum and spin for Msgr. Fellay?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lcHHiu2aL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Msgr. Fellay has been caught red-handed lying to the Catholic faithful, multiple times.
His hiring of a Zionist attorney and his Stalinist treatment of his priest who disagree with his doctrinal compromises are well docuмented.
You know it and yet you come on this forum ignoring these facts.
One could almost suspect you're Menzingen agent ?
-
The great tragedy is that bp fellay was ever consecrated in the first place...
He was one of the four chosen by Mgr Lefebvre.
What a great example of a whole lie, which is because of its being a HALF TRUTH.
The erstwhile Fr. Fellay was not "chosen" by ABL at all. His name was PROPOSED to him and under circuмstances that would have compromised the decision if ABL had not been distracted by money concerns.
As were Mgr. TdM and Mgr dG who support him.
Another HALF TRUTH and therefore a whole lie. The other two bishops were squarely behind +W just two years ago when the ill odor of corruption started to waft through their windows. This is docuмented. Maybe you ought to read a little more first, before sticking your foot in your mouth.
All three had been seminarians formed by Mgr Lefebvre, ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre, and had exercised their priesthood under the Archbishop post-ordination.
Yet another whole lie! That's three for three! The young Fr. Fellay had no such pastoral care that the others had. He was a bookkeeper for ABL, like Judas Iscariot was for the Apostles. He had no care of souls, nor administration of a parish or concern for the missions or any such thing. With him it was all about money. Period. Oh, but maybe it was all about money with you too, Mr. Vere.
the second misfortune for the SSPX was that he became Sup Gen...
Again, Mgr Lefebvre's intent had been that the bishops not be elected Sup Gen, but remain obedient to priests in the FSSPX's highest offices. The FSSPX general chapter (which I believe included Mgr Williamson) chose a different path merely two years after the Archbishop's passing.
A grain of truth! ABL did expect that priests would be elected to the office of SG, but he made a mistake. He did not put it into the rules, which he could have done. The fact that he did not was the thing that the Liberals used to their advantage, as is what they always do. That's what they're made of.
And their first foray into the corruption game began at the first Chapter meeting after the Founder's death. They wasted narry a moment.
Keep in mind that if Mgr. Lefebvre had wanted a bishop in charge of the FSSPX, he likely would have consecrated Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Aulagnier and Fr. Lorans.
The purpose of bishops in the Society was for confirmations, sermons, blessing holy oils for the society, keeping the faith, celebrating Pontifical Mass, and defending the Traditional Practice of the faith. He did not want a PARALLEL CHURCH. He did not want to set up a direct competitor of Rome, complete with an alternative (and BETTER!) Pope, which would be what a bishop SG would appear to be.
Curiously, +F has been entirely INEPT as his office in defense of the faith so the appearance of a parallel Church hasn't been an issue.
I guess that's one thing we can be thankful for.
.
-
You, who have done more damage to Traditional Catholicism than 10 modernist clerics, come on this forum and spin for Msgr. Fellay?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lcHHiu2aL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
So the person who co-wrote this book is now posting here at Cathinfo. And he is also an annulment lawyer (If I heard that correctly). I hope nobody welcomes him here. As far as I am concerned, he should be treated like a public unrepentant sinner and shunned.
-
Fellay has been caught red-handed lying to the Catholic faithful, multiple times.
Whether or not Mgr. Fellay was caught lying (and I have no opinion on the matter) is quite a different accusation than one he was only consecrated to please a rich Swiss donor. To be caught lying would implicate Mgr. Fellay and whoever allegedly conspired with him.
In contrast, an allegation he was only consecrated to please a financial donor implicates his consecrator, Mgr. Lefebvre, with simony. This is one of the gravest sins a bishop can commit. Nothing in the Archbishop's background or history suggests that he was dishonest, or lacked integrity or ever engaged in the buying or selling of sacraments or ecclesiastical office.
Moreover, Mgr. Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops shortly after resisting pressure from Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger to negotiate a protocol agreement. Thus combined with what was known about Mgr Lefebvre's character, it seems highly unlikely he would succuмb to pressure from a wealthy donor to consecrate someone a bishop.
-
Every organization needs money...even a pious one...in a moment of weakness, out of monetary concerns, it certainly seems that ABL consecrated someone who shouldn't have been...Someone who, in fact, should have been taken out of the bursar's office and sent out to a mission chapel instead...Simony? even I would say that's an excessive charge...Some of the same people who would make that charge would be the same ones making comments like " these people really lack funding...everything's so cheesy...think they'll last?"
:geezer:
-
Bp Fellay was supposedly chosen bc some wealthy backer wanted a Swiss bp...he got one..and we rcvd a dormant virus. :facepalm:
I know Mgr Fellay is not your favorite of the four bishops. Nevertheless, one should be cautious about making such charges, even if only spoken out of frustration.
Mgr. Lefebvre had many faults. However, nothing in his storied history suggests that his faults extended to integrity or character. Quite the opposite, actually. Therefore I doubt that Mgr Lefebvre would allow himself to be bought off by the wishes of a wealthy Swiss backer, since simony is one of the worst sins a bishop can commit - especially that of the episcopate.
Excusa me... Mr. Vere,
You, who have done more damage to Traditional Catholicism than 10 modernist clerics, come on this forum and spin for Msgr. Fellay?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lcHHiu2aL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Msgr. Fellay has been caught red-handed lying to the Catholic faithful, multiple times.
His hiring of a Zionist attorney and his Stalinist treatment of his priest who disagree with his doctrinal compromises are well docuмented.
You know it and yet you come on this forum ignoring these facts.
One could almost suspect you're Menzingen agent ?
The great St. Paul stood up to St. Peter, to HIS FACE, over his choice of where to sit down for supper.
One can only wonder what St. Paul would have to say today in THE FACE of such public scandals as "I believe in God but not a Catholic God," or "We should not fear our final judgment because Jesus will always be at our side."
Maybe he would say,
You would dare to put your own will above that of God, and you call yourself Christian? I have news for you: You are about to discover what it's like when you learn that the CATHOLIC GOD doesn't believe in YOU.
Listen up, and listen up good: Maybe you missed the memo, that at your final judgment Our Lord does not stand "at your SIDE" but rather He stands BEFORE YOU, and passes His august JUDGMENT IN YOUR FACE and IN YOUR CASE, and in your case, there is PLENTY to fear, for Jesus will not be 'AT YOUR SIDE' at all.
---------- And +F has the temerity to hide from these scandals and to act like it's okay that these things are going on?! He presses on with another Rosary Crusade, emphasizing that we should do penance, like the penance of listening to his interminable monologues, all to the end that after any hint of improvement months down the line, he can scamper forward to take credit for it.
Fr. Girouard is right: What will happen to us in the wake of this new phase of the ongoing Fellayite deception campaign? Maybe a few more token expulsions??
Maybe an announcement of a 'NEW DEAL'?
Pete Vere would love a new deal. Yummy stuff!!
.
-
The great tragedy is that bp fellay was ever consecrated in the first place...
He was one of the four chosen by Mgr Lefebvre.
What a great example of a whole lie, which is because of its being a HALF TRUTH.
The erstwhile Fr. Fellay was not "chosen" by ABL at all. His name was PROPOSED to him and under circuмstances that would have compromised the decision if ABL had not been distracted by money concerns.
You are seriously suggesting that finances were Mgr. Lefebvre's only reason for consecrating Mgr. Fellay a bishop?
You do realize that, if true, Mgr. Lefebvre would be guilty of simony?
As critical as I am of the Archbishop's actions, flirting with the sale of sacraments (especially the episcopate) and ecclesiastical office would be completely out-of-character for him. There is no proof that Mgr. Lefebvre ever engaged in such evil and illicit practices. None.
All three had been seminarians formed by Mgr Lefebvre, ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre, and had exercised their priesthood under the Archbishop post-ordination.
Yet another whole lie! That's three for three! The young Fr. Fellay had no such pastoral care that the others had. He was a bookkeeper for ABL, like Judas Iscariot was for the Apostles. He had no care of souls, nor administration of a parish or concern for the missions or any such thing. With him it was all about money. Period. Oh, but maybe it was all about money with you too, Mr. Vere.
Whether or not Mgr Fellay was ever assigned to a parish, I believe: 1) his seminarian studies were carried out at a FSSPX seminary; 2) the FSSPX was still under Mgr. Lefebvre's leadership at the time; 2) Mgr. Fellay was ordained a deacon, priest and consecrated a bishop by Mgr. Lefebvre; and 4) Mgr. Fellay's priesthood post-priestly ordination was within the FSSPX.
The purpose of bishops in the Society was for confirmations, sermons, blessing holy oils for the society, keeping the faith, celebrating Pontifical Mass, and defending the Traditional Practice of the faith. He did not want a PARALLEL CHURCH. He did not want to set up a direct competitor of Rome, complete with an alternative (and BETTER!) Pope, which would be what a bishop SG would appear to be.
Exactly. This is why many of us began to seriously question the FSSPX when, within a couple years of Mgr Lefebvre's death, Bishop Fellay was elected Superior General.
-
If you're a real trad ( not just a Latin Mass dilettante ) who attends an SSPX chapel I hope you've enjoyed the almost 180 degree turn-around in the SSPX over the past yr...I also hope you stop a moment to thank the Holy Resistance of the SSPXMC for making it all possible! :pray:
-
PV:
Having said that, I think the current division between Mgr Fellay and Mgr Williamson, which encompasses their respective followers, is that of an honest recognition each represents a different school of Mgr Lefebvre's thought. It is no secret that in building a worldwide traditionalist movement Mgr Lefebvre held together different schools of thought. It is also no secret that he often wavered back-and-forth between each school of thought.
Now that's an interesting angle, one I have never reflected upon. I never thought of the two bishops representing different schools of Lefebvre's thought. In all sincerity, I'm very much interested in a basic summary of those two schools of thought. Can you supply one? Because, if all it is on balance only a difference in how each man thinks and wants to go about preserving the legacy and work of the Archbishop, then we must cease from comparing and contrasting the characters of the two bishops based upon perceived honesty and integrity. You see, Pete, I perceive +Fellay to be ruthless, overeaching and tyrannical, not to mention, a man not extremely dedicated to the truth. But on the other hand, if the SG is just operating according to a legitimate school of Lefebvre's thought, which I have thus far failed to appreciate and interpret correctly, then I want to know it and make the proper mental adjustments.
-
Every organization needs money...even a pious one...in a moment of weakness, out of monetary concerns, it certainly seems that ABL consecrated someone who shouldn't have been...Someone who, in fact, should have been taken out of the bursar's office and sent out to a mission chapel instead...Simony? even I would say that's an excessive charge...Some of the same people who would make that charge would be the same ones making comments like " these people really lack funding...everything's so cheesy...think they'll last?"
Interesting argument, Bill, and I could understand why Mgr. Lefebvre might be tempted if finances were in a crunch. However, I still do not believe the Archbishop under financial pressure would have consecrated a young priest to the episcopate. There are many reasons; some of which come to mind are the following:
1 - Mgr. Lefebvre always asked his faithful to trust in Divine providence.
2 - Mgr Lefebvre at that moment was under the watchful eye of both the Church and the international media. Neither of which was sympathetic to the FSSPX and the 1988 episcopal consecrations. Thus not only would the Archbishop, for reasons of integrity and character, wished to avoid simony, but as a matter of prudence he likely would have wanted to avoid even the appearance of scandal or of selling sacraments and ecclesiastical office.
3 - Prior to founding the FSSPX, Mgr. Lefebvre was an effective missionary to some of the poorest countries in Africa. He has also led the FSSPX through some very humble and meagre times financially. Thus he possessed both the knowledge and experience to again lead the FSSPX through frugal times if need be.
-
The great tragedy is that bp fellay was ever consecrated in the first place...
He was one of the four chosen by Mgr Lefebvre.
What a great example of a whole lie, which is because of its being a HALF TRUTH.
The erstwhile Fr. Fellay was not "chosen" by ABL at all. His name was PROPOSED to him and under circuмstances that would have compromised the decision if ABL had not been distracted by money concerns.
You are seriously suggesting that finances were Mgr. Lefebvre's only reason for consecrating Mgr. Fellay a bishop?
Did you just climb out of a movie, like the Wizard of Oz? I didn't say "his only reason," THOSE ARE YOUR words. Another half-truth and therefore a whole lie.
You must be a specialist at this trash. Your cheap strawman tricks are transparent.
You do realize that, if true, Mgr. Lefebvre would be guilty of simony?
How fast you are to judge. And when a lawyer accepts money for destroying a marriage that's just part of a day's work, eh?
For ABL to be guilty of simony he would have to be guilty of the INTENT to have done so. You know that. But it's incovenient for your false cause, so you ignore it.
Your strawman is transparent. Must be made in China.
As critical as I am of the Archbishop's actions, flirting with the sale of sacraments (especially the episcopate) and ecclesiastical office would be completely out-of-character for him. There is no proof that Mgr. Lefebvre ever engaged in such evil and illicit practices. None.
We'll have to see about that, of course, if you knew of any you'd be mute.
It serves your agenda.
All three had been seminarians formed by Mgr Lefebvre, ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre, and had exercised their priesthood under the Archbishop post-ordination.
Yet another whole lie! That's three for three! The young Fr. Fellay had no such pastoral care that the others had. He was a bookkeeper for ABL, like Judas Iscariot was for the Apostles. He had no care of souls, nor administration of a parish or concern for the missions or any such thing. With him it was all about money. Period. Oh, but maybe it was all about money with you too, Mr. Vere.
Whether or not Mgr Fellay was ever assigned to a parish, I believe: 1) his seminarian studies were carried out at a FSSPX seminary; 2) the FSSPX was still under Mgr. Lefebvre's leadership at the time; 2) Mgr. Fellay was ordained a deacon, priest and consecrated a bishop by Mgr. Lefebvre; and 4) Mgr. Fellay's priesthood post-priestly ordination was within the FSSPX.
Irrelevant.
The purpose of bishops in the Society was for confirmations, sermons, blessing holy oils for the society, keeping the faith, celebrating Pontifical Mass, and defending the Traditional Practice of the faith. He did not want a PARALLEL CHURCH. He did not want to set up a direct competitor of Rome, complete with an alternative (and BETTER!) Pope, which would be what a bishop SG would appear to be.
Exactly. This is why many of us began to seriously question the FSSPX when, within a couple years of Mgr Lefebvre's death, Bishop Fellay was elected Superior General.
Well, we sure waited long enough to speak up. We gave the subversives plenty of time to do their dirty work, gradually making "progress" like termites in a wood frame building. Now what? -now that the whole building is infested, and the only thing holding it up is the fact that the termites are all holding hands!
.
-
Really, given that he was such a weak candidate I see no other explanation...And, just look; the SSPX was much bigger a couple of yrs ago ( you know, before people reacted to Bp Fellay's treachery accordingly ) and they were getting along quite well with 3 bishops ( immediately after the expulsion of +W )...So why was a 4th ever needed? Especially a bookkeeper...( remember Judas..Caiphas.bag of silver..Jaidhoffer Found/Max Krah.almost seamless )...I mean really, the 3 main enemies for the avg priest are 1. punch 2. Judy and 3. dough.. :idea:
-
"...and now that the only thing holding it up is the fact that the termites are all holding hands!" :applause: :roll-laugh1:
-
Actually I really wanted the "Babe Ruth Grand Slam" clickable smilie but someone failed to load it in there.. :surprised:
-
PV: Having said that, I think the current division between Mgr Fellay and Mgr Williamson, which encompasses their respective followers, is that of an honest recognition each represents a different school of Mgr Lefebvre's thought. It is no secret that in building a worldwide traditionalist movement Mgr Lefebvre held together different schools of thought. It is also no secret that he often wavered back-and-forth between each school of thought.
On the one hand you have Archbishop Lefebvre who expelled the Sedevacantist Nine, then immediately centralized power within the FSSPX. Five years later he signed the 1988 Protocol Agreement with Cardinal Ratzinger.
On the other hand you have Archbishop who withdrew his signature from the agreement and consecrated four bishops a month later.
Both are irreconcilable other than they involve the same historic figure who wields a powerful moral authority among his followers. Thus during his lifetime Mgr. Lefebvre was able to hold together Williamsonites, Fellayites, and the majority who likely fall somewhere in the middle but are not as doctrinaire about it.
After Mgr. Lefebvre's death, the FSSPX lacks a person of Mgr Lefebvre's historic personality and moral authority to hold together the two irreconcilable schools of his thinking.
Thus some follow Mgr. Fellay who represents one school of Mgr. Lefebvre's thought. Others, now called the Resistance, mainly follow Mgr. Williamson who represents the other school. The default position of the majority in the middle is to lean toward Mgr. Fellay because - as the old cliche goes - "possession is nine-tenths of the law."
As to Mgr. Fellay's expulsion of Mgr. Williamson and those sympathetic to him or his school of Lefebvre's thought (since not all Resistance priests are fond of Mgr. Williamson personally), there are many similarities to Mgr. Lefebvre's expulsion of the Sedevacantist Nine.
Not to say the Resistance is sedevacantist. However, neither were half the Sedevacantist Nine at the time of their expulsion, who fell more into the category of what I call "sede-agnosticism". That is, they did not believe Catholics could conclude with certainty a state of sedevacante, but they could not exclude the possibility either; rather, they felt that the crisis within the Church was seriously enough that one had to act outside of the Church's visible hierarchical structure.
-
The great tragedy is that bp fellay was ever consecrated in the first place...
He was one of the four chosen by Mgr Lefebvre.
What a great example of a whole lie, which is because of its being a HALF TRUTH.
The erstwhile Fr. Fellay was not "chosen" by ABL at all. His name was PROPOSED to him and under circuмstances that would have compromised the decision if ABL had not been distracted by money concerns.
You are seriously suggesting that finances were Mgr. Lefebvre's only reason for consecrating Mgr. Fellay a bishop?
Did you just climb out of a movie, like the Wizard of Oz? I didn't say "his only reason," THOSE ARE YOUR words. Another half-truth and therefore a whole lie.
You must be a specialist at this trash. Your cheap strawman tricks are transparent.
You do realize that, if true, Mgr. Lefebvre would be guilty of simony?
How fast you are to judge. And when a lawyer accepts money for destroying a marriage that's just part of a day's work, eh?
For ABL to be guilty of simony he would have to be guilty of the INTENT to have done so. You know that. But it's incovenient for your false cause, so you ignore it.
Your strawman is transparent. Must be made in China.
As critical as I am of the Archbishop's actions, flirting with the sale of sacraments (especially the episcopate) and ecclesiastical office would be completely out-of-character for him. There is no proof that Mgr. Lefebvre ever engaged in such evil and illicit practices. None.
We'll have to see about that, of course, if you knew of any you'd be mute.
It serves your agenda.
All three had been seminarians formed by Mgr Lefebvre, ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre, and had exercised their priesthood under the Archbishop post-ordination.
Yet another whole lie! That's three for three! The young Fr. Fellay had no such pastoral care that the others had. He was a bookkeeper for ABL, like Judas Iscariot was for the Apostles. He had no care of souls, nor administration of a parish or concern for the missions or any such thing. With him it was all about money. Period. Oh, but maybe it was all about money with you too, Mr. Vere.
Whether or not Mgr Fellay was ever assigned to a parish, I believe: 1) his seminarian studies were carried out at a FSSPX seminary; 2) the FSSPX was still under Mgr. Lefebvre's leadership at the time; 2) Mgr. Fellay was ordained a deacon, priest and consecrated a bishop by Mgr. Lefebvre; and 4) Mgr. Fellay's priesthood post-priestly ordination was within the FSSPX.
Irrelevant.
The purpose of bishops in the Society was for confirmations, sermons, blessing holy oils for the society, keeping the faith, celebrating Pontifical Mass, and defending the Traditional Practice of the faith. He did not want a PARALLEL CHURCH. He did not want to set up a direct competitor of Rome, complete with an alternative (and BETTER!) Pope, which would be what a bishop SG would appear to be.
Exactly. This is why many of us began to seriously question the FSSPX when, within a couple years of Mgr Lefebvre's death, Bishop Fellay was elected Superior General.
Well, we sure waited long enough to speak up. We gave the subversives plenty of time to do their dirty work, gradually making "progress" like termites in a wood frame building. Now what? -now that the whole building is infested, and the only thing holding it up is the fact that the termites are all holding hands!
.
I don't usually put people on ignore. However, if you believe for a moment that Mgr. Lefebvre would lower himself to consecrating a man to the highest order of priesthood because a rich financial donor put pressure on him and he was facing financial difficulties, then obviously you know nothing about the Archbishop's character or integrity.
Goodbye.
-
Really, given that he was such a weak candidate I see no other explanation...
I have often questioned the choice of Bishop Fellay as well, given his young age at the time (five years before the recommended canonical age) and relative experience compared to other candidates whom Mgr. Lefebvre could have chosen. But at the end of the day, he was among the four chosen by the Archbishop.
Only the Archbishop knows why he chose Mgr. Fellay. And the Archbishop is no longer with us this side of Heaven. So for us it remains speculation.
That said, Mgr. Lefebvre weighed his decision to consecrated bishops very carefully. He spent over a year mulling it over in prayer and meditation. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his decision, no one can accuse him of not giving it long and serious thought.
As to why Mgr. Lefebvre shifted his plan in the final month from three to four bishops. Dom Gerard wondered the same thing. However, only the Archbishop knows the answer to that question.
-
.
From the second thread post, on page one:
If I have observed battle fatigue within the SSPX, I observe it in this Eleison Comments as well.
It explains the refusal to found a worldwide organization like something akin to Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX.
The argument that modern man is no longer disposed to accept authority, and therefore such enterprises are no longer practical or effective is erroneous.
To refuse to build one because of some future persecution is, in my opinion, an insufficient reason.
If we are in constant (apparent) "rebellion," it is because our leaders are showing signs of battle fatigue and trying to negotiate a truce with the enemy.
The fact that ABL founded the SSPX disproves utterly the theory of Fr. Calvert.
This made no sense to me the first time I read it, because I had no idea who "Fr. Calvert" is, or was, or whatever, and now I know why.
Are you trying to say that the theory of FR. ROGER CALMEL is "utterly disproved" by the fact that ABL founded the SSPX?
We are looking for leaders to whom we can be secure in rendering our obedience, and would happily give it.
Additionally, I find within this letter the seeds of tradcuмenism, which can also only rise as a consequence of battle fatigue, as it is a blatant compromise of principle to set aside dogmatic and doctrinal differences for the sake of opposing modernism.
How can a tradcuмenist oppose ecuмenism?
And how will the resistance escape the same fate as the Protestant sects with no centralized authority, and avoid splintering into ever smaller cells?
This strategy seems rather to provoke the onset of the end times, rather than stave it off.
.
-
PV: Having said that, I think the current division between Mgr Fellay and Mgr Williamson, which encompasses their respective followers, is that of an honest recognition each represents a different school of Mgr Lefebvre's thought. It is no secret that in building a worldwide traditionalist movement Mgr Lefebvre held together different schools of thought. It is also no secret that he often wavered back-and-forth between each school of thought.
On the one hand you have Archbishop Lefebvre who expelled the Sedevacantist Nine, then immediately centralized power within the FSSPX. Five years later he signed the 1988 Protocol Agreement with Cardinal Ratzinger.
On the other hand you have Archbishop who withdrew his signature from the agreement and consecrated four bishops a month later.
Both are irreconcilable other than they involve the same historic figure who wields a powerful moral authority among his followers. Thus during his lifetime Mgr. Lefebvre was able to hold together Williamsonites, Fellayites, and the majority who likely fall somewhere in the middle but are not as doctrinaire about it.
After Mgr. Lefebvre's death, the FSSPX lacks a person of Mgr Lefebvre's historic personality and moral authority to hold together the two irreconcilable schools of his thinking.
Thus some follow Mgr. Fellay who represents one school of Mgr. Lefebvre's thought. Others, now called the Resistance, mainly follow Mgr. Williamson who represents the other school. The default position of the majority in the middle is to lean toward Mgr. Fellay because - as the old cliche goes - "possession is nine-tenths of the law."
As to Mgr. Fellay's expulsion of Mgr. Williamson and those sympathetic to him or his school of Lefebvre's thought (since not all Resistance priests are fond of Mgr. Williamson personally), there are many similarities to Mgr. Lefebvre's expulsion of the Sedevacantist Nine.
Not to say the Resistance is sedevacantist. However, neither were half the Sedevacantist Nine at the time of their expulsion, who fell more into the category of what I call "sede-agnosticism". That is, they did not believe Catholics could conclude with certainty a state of sedevacante, but they could not exclude the possibility either; rather, they felt that the crisis within the Church was seriously enough that one had to act outside of the Church's visible hierarchical structure.
Sean says:
Interestingly, in an article posted elsewhere on this forum, Fr. Cekada has claimed that the reason the 9 were expelled was not so much because they were sedevacantists (as most of them weren't), but because their outspokenness about things like their preference for the 1954 Missal; refusal to say "una cuм" Masses; etc, were frustrating Archbishop Lefebvre's diplomatic relations with Rome.
Not sure how much value there is to that theory, as I was not there at the time.
Archbishop Lefebvre himself had plenty to say which would make relations difficult after the 9 were expelled (i.e., I think he called the Pope an antichrist around the time of Assisi), so...
-
Sean says:
Interestingly, in an article posted elsewhere on this forum, Fr. Cekada has claimed that the reason the 9 were expelled was not so much because they were sedevacantists (as most of them weren't), but because their outspokenness about things like their preference for the 1954 Missal; refusal to say "una cuм" Masses; etc, were frustrating Archbishop Lefebvre's diplomatic relations with Rome.
That issue was taken up with Fr.Cekada himself over on IA when it was still operating. It ought to be clear to everyone at this point that "the nine" did not leave over SVIsm. ABL did not part company with them over the alleged sede position of a few of them. Their beef then was the Society's use of the '62 missal and their disagreements over marriage annulments. That was it in a nutshell. SVism had nothing to do, at least ostensibly, with their ejection or departure, however one wants to look at it. Why can't the issue of "the nine" be put to bed. If PV and others are trying to conflate the treatment of "the nine" by the Archbishop with the treatment of a number of good Society priests at the hands of Fellay, give it up. ABL would never have released men like Fr. Abrahamowitz, Fr. Chazal, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Girouard and a host of others. He would have seen these priests as the cream of the crop, and would had done everything in his power to hold on to them.
-
ABL would never have released men like Fr. Abrahamowitz, Fr. Chazal, Fr. Pfeiffer, Fr. Girouard and a host of others. He would have seen these priests as the cream of the crop, and would had done everything in his power to hold on to them.
Back then, a number of the nine were seen as the "cream of the crop" of the SSPX. I became traditionalist within a decade of their departure. Back then people - priest and laity alike - were still talking about how these were some of the brightest and most capable priests that Mgr Lefebvre had ordained.
-
Fr.Kelly is a rank Americanist who told my friend "the way things are in this country ( separation of Church and State ) are the way it should be..the Church is free here.."
he replied, " Father, Satanism is free here.."
Fr. Kelly and Sanborne and the rest were rcvng funds fm the ArchBp for the purpose of securing property for the SSPX....they were putting the property in THEIR names....In court Fr. Kelly sd that they " were never under the authority of the ArchBp...they were just a loose association of priests.." So he lied..under oath...about his bishop...etc....Please don't put " the nine" in the same sentance-or paragraph-as Fr. Chazal. Fr. Pfeiffer..Fr. Hewko..Bp Williamson and all the other ( 106 and counting ) priests that have left over the past couple of yrs...
BTW..is traditio SSPV? I have to wonder ( one can only wonder bc the "fathers" are anonymous...but traditio always obsesses over the same 3 things: 1. the '52 missal vs. the '62 missal..2. accepting the annullments-granted fm valid bishops-in the NO...3. the validity/endorsement of sede-vacantism..one can also p/u the naive faith in the American system espoused by people like Fr. Kelly.
:barf:
-
It's true, SSPV is thoroughly infected with Americanism. It's clearly evident in the schools they run. Unfortunate.
-
It's true, SSPV is thoroughly infected with Americanism. It's clearly evident in the schools they run. Unfortunate.
That surprises me, insofar as it could be taken as an endorsement of the heretical Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae.
-
BTW..is traditio SSPV? I have to wonder ( one can only wonder bc the "fathers" are anonymous...
This has been dealt with at length in the past. Traditio began as the work of "Fr." M. Morrison who "offers" the TLM at an ecuмenical and interfaith Fisherman's Wharf chapel in San Francisco. (At one time shared with Zen Buddhists, among others). There was always a huge question mark over his orders, suspected of being "Old Catholic" and of which he would never answer questions when readers inquired. This in itself is very suspicious since orders are a public matter within the Church.
About a decade ago, some FSSPX clergy challenged the validity of his orders online, and put out a warning against reading him. His followers accused the FSSPX priests of taking an insular "No Salvation Outside of the FSSPX" approach. At the time, I was also engaged in some very heated exchanges with the FSSPX.
However, since the FSSPX were right with regards to Morrison, I defended them quite publicly. The FSSPX clergy responded by backing me up as well. Shortly after that Fr. Morrison became "Fr. Moderator" and sometime after that "Frs. Moderator".
One of the few points Ecclesia Dei, FSSPX and sedevacantist theologians have agreed upon during the last two decades is our mutual suspicion toward the source of Morrison's alleged orders.
-
Interestingly, in an article posted elsewhere on this forum, Fr. Cekada has claimed that the reason the 9 were expelled was not so much because they were sedevacantists (as most of them weren't), but because their outspokenness about things like their preference for the 1954 Missal; refusal to say "una cuм" Masses; etc, were frustrating Archbishop Lefebvre's diplomatic relations with Rome.
Not sure how much value there is to that theory, as I was not there at the time.
It is pretty close to what I recall, when the controversy was still hot, less than a decade after it arose.
As you point out, the Nine "were frustrating Archbishop Lefebvre's diplomatic relations with Rome."
At the end of the day, why did Mgr. Fellay expel Mgr. Williamson and other priests who now form the backbone of the Resistance?
-
As I (non-dogmatically) see it, the sede position should require electing a new pope. Currently, I see no way to improve upon previous trad attempts at conclavism. Therefore, I chose not to embrace sedevacantism.
I assume then that if the competent authorities in the Church made a formal judgement that Francis is a heretic and therefore deposed by the law, you would accept that decision? So I would argue that you are not obligated to embrace sede vacantism until there is guidance from competent authorities in the Church. But who are the competent authorities? I hope you are not waiting for the heretics in Rome to make a decision! The decision will have to come from faithful Catholic clergy.
-
Moreover, he is the only bishop friendly to the Resistance. Sooner or later the Resistance will need to confirm its faithful and ordain new priests.
I'm surprised the dogmatic anti-sedes of the Resistance have not figured that out yet. They bad-mouth Bishop Fellay, Bishop Tissier, and Bishop de Galeratta. They bad-mouth the sede bishops. And now they are bad-mouthing Bishop Williamson (for tradecuмenism among other things). Who is going to ordain their priests? Are they actually going to bad-mouth a bishop out of one side of the mouth and then ask him to ordain priests out the other side? Maybe it is time to re-evaluate your position if you can't find a single bishop on the face of the earth to support it.
-
Moreover, he is the only bishop friendly to the Resistance. Sooner or later the Resistance will need to confirm its faithful and ordain new priests.
I'm surprised the dogmatic anti-sedes of the Resistance have not figured that out yet. They bad-mouth Bishop Fellay, Bishop Tissier, and Bishop de Galeratta. They bad-mouth the sede bishops. And now they are bad-mouthing Bishop Williamson (for tradecuмenism among other things). Who is going to ordain their priests? Are they actually going to bad-mouth a bishop out of one side of the mouth and then ask him to ordain priests out the other side? Maybe it is time to re-evaluate your position if you can't find a single bishop on the face of the earth to support it.
I could actually see Mgr. Williamson continuing to confirm and ordain for the chapels of his priestly critics. He seems to enjoy boisterous debate and does not strike me as the type to take criticism personally or to take himself too seriously.
That being said, the question for the Resistance is what will happen once Mgr. Williamson passes away, or becomes incapacitated due to age? He is the oldest of the four bishops consecrated by Mgr. Lefebvre.
He also appears to be in no hurry to consecrate new bishops. I can understand why. One of the major criticisms I and other critics have of Mgr. Williamson is the imprudence that often accompany his words and actions. In this case, I can understand fully why he would opt for prudence. I imagine the last thing that Mgr. Williamson wishes is for the Resistance to become the El Palmar de Troya of this generation.
That being said, Mgr. Williamson's reported critics within the Resistance have pretty much painted themselves into a corner. Where else will they find a bishop? The Novus Ordo? Bishop Fellay? The numerous independent bishops claiming Old Catholic lineage? Clarence Kelly and the SSPV?
Additionally, if nothing else, Mgr. Williamson has learned some hard lessons over the past couple years, and likely from the experiences of Mgr. Thuc as well. If the FSSPX can expel him after 25 years of episcopal ministry, finding his continue presence inconvenient, certainly the Resistance can dispose of him as well once younger bishops are consecrated for the movement. Mgr. Williamson's spiritual leadership of the movement and ability to shape the emerging movement is largely dependent upon the fact he is the movement's only bishop.
-
.
The topic here is Eleison Comments CCCXXXV:
Number CCCXXXV (335)
14 December 2013
FATHER RIOULT II
Let me quote Fr Olivier Rioult from his October 6 interview in Paris (cf. EC 333) on another question, much disputed within today's Catholic Resistance – the question of organization. Fr Rioult was asked whether he thought it was possible to set up a new worldwide organization, or would he rather opt for some kind of free association such as has grouped together sedevacantists for a number of years ? Here is his answer, this time in his very own words:--
"In the months to come I may be setting up a broad kind of association based on friendship with other Catholics in the Resistance, whether or not they are sedevacantists, sedevacantism being for me an opinion. But the situation is not ripe here and now for such an association. In any case whatever is Catholic is ours. So any Catholics ready to operate as Catholics and to resist the modernism reigning supreme within the Church, we will work with. Therefore yes, to a broad kind of association sharing the same common good: the Faith and worship of the Catholic Church, the defence of the Faith. Having this same common good can create friendship amongst all our groups.
"I think that the closer we come to the end times, the more Catholics will have to be anarchists, not in principle but in practice. By which I mean, they will have to be against all the powers that be, because these will all have been neutralized, undermined or subverted, operating contrary to the natural order. Hence, in practice, Catholics will have to stand up to them all, in Church or State... because they will all be twisted out of shape, under Masonic influence... serving in any case the Prince of this world. So I think it will be very difficult to create any more worldwide structures. The French Dominican priest, Fr Roger Calmel, had a clear view of things. As far back as 1970 he said that the natural leaders in any given place will have to make their ministry shine out in that one place, being tied by bonds of no more than friendship to the leaders in any other place.
"In 1970, in the French periodical "Itineraires" (#149), he wrote: "The fight for the Faith will have to be fought by little groups refusing to enter into any structured or universal organizations. Within these various groups, such as a small school, a humble convent, a prayer group, a gathering of Christian families or the organizing of a pilgrimage, the authority is real and accepted by everybody... All that is needed is for each Catholic to reach as far as his grace and authority will carry him in the little sphere which is certainly his to lead, and which he will take charge of without having over him any grand administrative structures to make him do so'. "
If Fr. Calmel wrote that in 1970 for the circuмstances of 1970, one might say either that he was seeing too far ahead, or that Archbishop Lefebvre proved by organizing the Society of St Pius X what could still be done in 1970. But I do think that Fr. Calmel was right in the long run. One might say, watching what happened to the Society last year, that it was bound to run into the sand. Archbishop Lefebvre, like Pope St Pius X, conducted a marvelous rearguard action, but one notes how much less the Archbishop could achieve, coming70 years later than the Pope, and now we are 40 years on from the Archbishop. In a world marching to its ruin the realization of Fr. Calmel’s prophecy could not be indefinitely delayed.
Dear readers, if we wish to stay with Our Lord, we have no choice but to gird our loins. In my opinion, Fr Calmel and Fr Rioult are right. Mother of God, Help of Christians, help!
Kyrie eleison.
.
Bishop Williamson thinks Fr. Calmel was right in the long run, and that he and Fr. Rioult are right. And that, in the context of ABL's founding of the SSPX in 1970 being an example of what could still be done in 1970.
H.E. is saying that if ABL were here today, he would be unable to do today what could be done in 1970, that is, found another Society like the SSPX, in defense of his own response to those who are asking him to so "lead".
(P.S. It's Fr. Calmel, not "Calvert.")
.
-
As I (non-dogmatically) see it, the sede position should require electing a new pope. Currently, I see no way to improve upon previous trad attempts at conclavism. Therefore, I chose not to embrace sedevacantism.
I assume then that if the competent authorities in the Church made a formal judgement that Francis is a heretic and therefore deposed by the law, you would accept that decision? So I would argue that you are not obligated to embrace sede vacantism until there is guidance from competent authorities in the Church. But who are the competent authorities? I hope you are not waiting for the heretics in Rome to make a decision! The decision will have to come from faithful Catholic clergy.
If there are no such faithful clergy who are willing to get together and take action, then we have a continuing situation of Modernists running the insane asylum.
There is already division among traditionalists as to who is legitimate and who is not.
Until they can all agree, there will be no united action, and it's going to take an act of God. And an act of God has the potential of being not so pretty.
It seems to be the case that what to do about the current situation in the Vatican doesn't have a lot of interest among people at large. If we're waiting for popular opinion to kick in, we might be waiting forever. Francis is "Man of the Year," no?
.
-
Sometimes those who push "prudence" are really pushing a false prudence...they're pushing cowardice..If there's one hallmark trait of the modern world I hate the most it's the ubiquitous cowardice..modern man can't let his "no" be "no..and his "yes" be "yes"...And he certainly can't speak truth to power, like John the Baptist, bc he may lose his head...Which means that this world is all he really cares for.....Yes, we're not persecuted all that much..the Americanists cheer...but really, we're just not worth persecuting..We're not militant..A sizeable amount of SSPX parishioners watch and believe the controlled media...So they see the world " through spectacles that the Jєωs have placed on their nose.." :read-paper:
-
As I (non-dogmatically) see it, the sede position should require electing a new pope. Currently, I see no way to improve upon previous trad attempts at conclavism. Therefore, I chose not to embrace sedevacantism.
I assume then that if the competent authorities in the Church made a formal judgement that Francis is a heretic and therefore deposed by the law, you would accept that decision? So I would argue that you are not obligated to embrace sede vacantism until there is guidance from competent authorities in the Church. But who are the competent authorities? I hope you are not waiting for the heretics in Rome to make a decision! The decision will have to come from faithful Catholic clergy.
Who are the competent authorities? Does Francis lose his office before or after his is authoritatively judged a heretic. If the latter, then perhaps nobody is competent to judge him as pope. If the former, still the question remains. Can this authority be obtained through supplied jurisdiction?
I think the cleanest solution would to route Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ from the existing conciliar structure and I do think that is possible.
-
As I (non-dogmatically) see it, the sede position should require electing a new pope. Currently, I see no way to improve upon previous trad attempts at conclavism. Therefore, I chose not to embrace sedevacantism.
I assume then that if the competent authorities in the Church made a formal judgement that Francis is a heretic and therefore deposed by the law, you would accept that decision? So I would argue that you are not obligated to embrace sede vacantism until there is guidance from competent authorities in the Church. But who are the competent authorities? I hope you are not waiting for the heretics in Rome to make a decision! The decision will have to come from faithful Catholic clergy.
Who are the competent authorities? Does Francis lose his office before or after his is authoritatively judged a heretic. If the latter, then perhaps nobody is competent to judge him as pope. If the former, still the question remains. Can this authority be obtained through supplied jurisdiction?
I think the cleanest solution would to route Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ from the existing conciliar structure and I do think that is possible.
Traditional Catholic clergy are the competent authorities. When he loses his office is an open question. But while it is an important question it isn't necessary to resolve it before taking action. That's because all theologians are in agreement that the Church has the power to remove a heretic from the papacy. That just seems to be common sense but who am I to judge? I don't have all the answers to these questions and even the answers that I have are not definitive so as far as who has the authority to judge the legitimacy of a claim to the papacy today I would have to say that it lays with traditional Catholic clergy because they are the only ones who are still keeping the faith. I can't be anymore specific than that. It seems highly unlikely right now that the entire traditional Catholic community will rise as one and declare Francis a heretic and elect a new pope so I really don't know what is going to happen. It is all in God's hands but I'm sure we will be held responsible if we don't diligently seek a resolution to this crisis.
-
As I (non-dogmatically) see it, the sede position should require electing a new pope. Currently, I see no way to improve upon previous trad attempts at conclavism. Therefore, I chose not to embrace sedevacantism.
I assume then that if the competent authorities in the Church made a formal judgement that Francis is a heretic and therefore deposed by the law, you would accept that decision? So I would argue that you are not obligated to embrace sede vacantism until there is guidance from competent authorities in the Church. But who are the competent authorities? I hope you are not waiting for the heretics in Rome to make a decision! The decision will have to come from faithful Catholic clergy.
Who are the competent authorities? Does Francis lose his office before or after his [he] is authoritatively judged a heretic[?] If the latter, then perhaps nobody is competent to judge him as pope. If the former, still the question remains. Can this authority be obtained through supplied jurisdiction?
I don't think that's what 'supplied jurisdiction' is for. It has to do with the necessity of getting the sacraments to the faithful in case of emergency.
Of course, electing a pope by extraordinary means in a crisis like this is an emergency, but it isn't a sacrament to elect a pope. It would take a general council, that is, all the bishops of the world, to agree on electing a new pope. Can you imagine that happening? I can't. And if it were some "core group of clerics" as Fr. Paul Kramer suggested, how many would it take? And wouldn't they most likely be the ones who are rather marginalized as it is? So where would their credibility come from?
It seems to be a situation where an act of God is necessary.
I think the cleanest solution would [be,] to [rout] Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ from the existing conciliar structure and I do think that is possible.
Would you mind describing just how that would work? Do you know someone with a list of who is Masonic and who is not? And if so, how do you know the list is reliable? Masons guard their membership lists very secretively.
.
-
I think the cleanest solution would [be,] to [rout] Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ from the existing conciliar structure and I do think that is possible.
Would you mind describing just how that would work? Do you know someone with a list of who is Masonic and who is not? And if so, how do you know the list is reliable? Masons guard their membership lists very secretively.
Inquisition. The substance of inquisition is aggressive, unified intolerance of infiltration and heresy among Catholics. Methods of a modern inquisition conducted by traditionalists might include investigation, criticism, and poaching of the NO faithful. If the NO faithful were confronted with the truth, many of them become traditionalist or simply walk away.
If such a traditionalist attack upon the heresy and infiltration could be sustained, I believe that the balance of power would gradually shift from the conciliarist heresiarchs to traditionalists. Tambourines have gone out of style. Conciliarists have nothing left but their false claim to represent true Catholicism. Once we start taking away their legitimacy by forcefully and consistently exposing the falsehoods of Vatican II to their faithful, the game is up.
Currently, trads enjoy a consensus among all factions that Tradition must be maintained. This feeling extends to some extent even to the indult. After so many decades of little progress, trads may come to lose patience with Rome and outgrow their fear of the future. They may collectively decide that Tradition must not only be maintained but that, furthermore, it must be restored. Then the attack upon the conciliarists will begin in earnest.
-
Wow...I have counted 7-new Threads started that are in fire storm over Bishop Williamson's "tradecuмenism" comment.
That is actually good. It shows that there is still a "nerve" of Truth; rather than an indicator of mediocrity.
Pristine metal is always first purified in the fire, hammered, polished, and brought to its brilliant shine with mirrored image that reflects the Truth even more.