Author Topic: Eleison Comments 332: (Read 3163 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** November 22, 2013, 10:47:17 PM »

Number CCCXXXII (332) 23 November 2013

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAITH FIRST
The great lesson taught by Archbishop Lefebvre (1905-1991) to Catholics who had ears to hear was that the Faith is higher than obedience. The sad lesson we have learned since is that obedience keeps on being rated higher than the Faith. These “Comments”, driven continually by today’s confusion in Church, world and Society of St Pius X to get back to basics, have often attempted to explain why the Faith must come first.

Take for instance the arguments of an honourable SSPX priest who recently sent me an e-mail, accusing me of wrongly assessing the present state of the SSPX. My resistance to the – as I call it – Newsociety is, he says, 1) too personally motivated, 2) forgetting the good of the Church, 3) inconsistent with positions I have taken before, 4) lacking Catholic realism, 5) against Church indefectibility, 6) for each man being his own Pope, 7) for a modernist vision of the Church, 8) Protestant, 9) against union with Rome, and finally 10) pushing souls away from the Church.

Now, I am no Archbishop Lefebvre, and I do not pretend to be, but does my colleague realize that all of these arguments (except the third) he could have applied thirty years ago to the Archbishop’s resistance to the official Church authorities in Rome ? Yet the Archbishop’s resistance was 1) motivated only by the urgent need to defend the Faith, 2) for the good of the Universal Church, 4) in a completely realistic way (as the Catholic fruits of his Society proved), 5) not disproving but proving, by his very resistance, the Church’s indefectibility, 6) for the Church of all time being the measure of the Popes, 7) against all craziness of neo-modernism, 8) against modernism’s renewal of Protestantism, 9) for union with the Catholic Rome of all time, and finally 10) helping many truly Catholic souls to keep the Faith instead of losing it.

And what justified the Archbishop’s resistance back then ? What proved then that he was not, despite the appearances, a rebel like Luther, but truly Catholic, and a great servant of the Church? His doctrine, his doctrine, his doctrine ! Whereas Luther denied a mass of Catholic teachings, the Archbishop affirmed every one of them. It was in the name of the doctrine of the Faith that the Archbishop took his stand against the Conciliar Popes and Church authorities who were radically undermining that doctrine by renewing and adopting the dreadful errors of modernism.

So what justifies now a certain resistance to the leadership of the SSPX ? How can those who resist claim to be the truest servants of the SSPX ? Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine ! The mid-April Declaration of 2012 was proof of an appalling doctrinal deficiency at the top of the SSPX, and while the Declaration was withdrawn, its contents have not been retracted but even defended, as being for instance “too subtle” ! Nor have the official SSPX docuмents of July 14, 2012 or June 27, 2013 properly undone the damage. The proof is that the governing policy of SSPX HQ has not changed. Dear colleague, your own Society was founded on putting Faith before apparent obedience, and now you want to defend that Society by putting apparent obedience to the Society before the Faith ? Study the docuмents, and watch the actions !

Kyrie eleison.

P.S. Meanwhile does anybody have a complete set of Spanish or French translations of this “Commentary” from when they began to appear, in the early EC 100’s ? Please let us know.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2013, 10:48:31 PM »

Definitely one of the better EC's in recent memory.

Wessex · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2013, 05:09:33 AM »

The reason for this priest's confusion is because he puts the SSPX at the centre of his world and it is devouring him. He has invested his life in the organisation and feels it is beyond criticism. His belief in the Church has become a belief in the SSPX which is a dangerous development and which can one day end in terrible and damaging disillusionment. A healthier approach is to use the facilities that trad institutions provide with gratitude but also with a critical eye. Being a genuine traditionalist in this day and age means proceeding along these lines. The relentless quest for truth is what it is all about, not feelings of (in)security.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2013, 05:51:17 AM »

I don't understand how the priest can think the resistance threatens the Church's indefectability but that the NSSPX doesn't. Is this what the new Society priests are learning in the seminary? That traditionalism threatens the indefectability of the Church? That's a common concern for someone converting to traditionalism to have, but how can a priest of any amount of years who has gone through seminary have the same concern? If this concern was bred at the seminary, then before you know it Fellay won't have any priests left.

And of course, the very idea is nonsense. It is the Novus Ordo which threatens the indefectability of the Church, which is precisely why all good traditional clergy have always insisted on a true distinction between Catholic and Conciliar. Priests who think the Church's indefectability is challenged by the traditional Catholic resistance are very confused to the meaning of at least indefectability, and probably quite a few other things. It's the kind of silly slop that one would expect to hear from Fr Z. It doesn't belong to traditional priests. Or, shouldn't.

Militia Jesu · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2013, 10:00:31 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Definitely one of the better EC's in recent memory.

So now you agree that;

1) [The contents of] the mid-April Declaration of 2012 "have not been retracted but even defended", as being for instance “too subtle!",

2) The official SSPX docuмents of July 14, 2012 and June 27, 2013 "have not properly undone the damage", and..

3) That it has been "proven that the governing policy of SSPX HQ has not changed" ????

If that is the case, good for you.

Time to stop giving the benefit of doubt to "weasel politicians" and "pathological liars" then...

If calling Francis a modernist or saying 'thank goodness we didn't sign a deal with Rome' were grounds to give them any benefit, we might as well start giving it to Obama and people of his ilk.

John Grace · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2013, 10:16:30 AM »

Whilst Cassini and NewTemplar would disagree this is an accurate comment regarding the liberal Superior General of the Zionist SSPX

Like all Fellayites they are more than welcome to defend or "explain away" the Great One

The best ever is the man at Corpus Christi in Athlone telling me with a straight face that Bishop Fellay is a good man. The Remnant rag in his hand made it all the more comical. He genuinely believed it. I felt sorry for the man.

Quote

Time to stop giving the benefit of doubt to "weasel politicians" and "pathological liars" then.

John Grace · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2013, 10:27:49 AM »

By giving Bishop Fellay the benefit of the doubt, the likes of Sean Johnson are like the Fellayites, who have no notion of leaving SSPX chapels and "explain away" even when Bishop Fellay is wrong. They are defending a liar and a liberal. 'Yes' men who lack principle.

I never liked 'New Templar' after he started saying Bishop Williamson was "imprudent".

hollingsworth · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2013, 10:30:05 AM »

Quote

The reason for this priest's confusion is because he puts the SSPX at the centre of his world and it is devouring him. He has invested his life in the organisation and feels it is beyond criticism.

I am wondering at this point what prevents those of us who now resist the neo-sspx from making the so-called "resistance" into a new world center, from eventually being devoured by it, and feeling finally that it is beyond criticism.

John Grace · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2013, 10:33:12 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
The reason for this priest's confusion is because he puts the SSPX at the centre of his world and it is devouring him. He has invested his life in the organisation and feels it is beyond criticism.

I am wondering at this point what prevents those of us who now resist the neo-sspx from making the so-called "resistance" into a new world center, from eventually being devoured by it, and feeling finally that it is beyond criticism.

The priests of the neo SSPX and the laity have shown themselves not to have been worthy. They are paying the price.

I don't know about other Districts but I never regarded the bulk of the Irish of being hardline.A few here and there but the bulk seem to be Christian Democrats.

You can't be too harsh because in the past few years Ireland is turning into a third world country.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2013, 11:49:06 AM »

.

Some very good replies:

Quote from: Wessex

The reason for this priest's confusion is because he puts the SSPX at the centre of his world and it is devouring him. He has invested his life in the organisation and feels it is beyond criticism. His belief in the Church has become a belief in the SSPX which is a dangerous development and which can one day end in terrible and damaging disillusionment.

Reading this, I am reminded of how Pope Francis has been
quoting Scripture ever since his election (and before, actually)
only to MISinterpret the proper meaning thereof, and to
MISapply the lessons that Apostolic Sacred Tradidition would
have us learn from the Bible, for this phenomenon is most
decidedly a terrible and damaging disillusionment, and it's
coming right from the "humble" papal apartment!

Quote from: Wessex additionally

A healthier approach is to use the facilities that trad institutions provide with gratitude but also with a critical eye. Being a genuine traditionalist in this day and age means proceeding along these lines. The relentless quest for truth is what it is all about, not feelings of (in)security.

With a critical eye, to be sure!

We are called to a higher level of discernment. Our Lord said in
Scripture, "they have Moses and the prophets; let them hear
them" (Lk. xvi. 29). Well, we have 2000 years of Church history,
ex cathedra definitions, 20 reliable Great Councils (and the 21st
conspicuously UNreliable in light of the first 20!), and the Doctors
of the Church. (Actually, watch out for the next "doctor" who
might be someone like Karl Rahner or Pierre Teihard de Chardin!)

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I don't understand how the priest can think the resistance threatens the Church's indefectability but that the NSSPX doesn't. Is this what the new Society priests are learning in the seminary? That traditionalism threatens the indefectability of the Church? That's a common concern for someone converting to traditionalism to have, but how can a priest of any amount of years who has gone through seminary have the same concern? If this concern was bred at the seminary, then before you know it Fellay won't have any priests left.

And of course, the very idea is nonsense. It is the Novus Ordo which threatens the indefectability of the Church, which is precisely why all good traditional clergy have always insisted on a true distinction between Catholic and Conciliar. Priests who think the Church's indefectability is challenged by the traditional Catholic resistance are very confused to the meaning of at least indefectability, and probably quite a few other things. It's the kind of silly slop that one would expect to hear from Fr Z. It doesn't belong to traditional priests. Or, shouldn't.

Fr. Z is probably his bedtime meditation!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote from: Militia Jesu

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Definitely one of the better EC's in recent memory.

So now you agree that;

1) [The contents of] the mid-April Declaration of 2012 "have not been retracted but even defended", as being for instance “too subtle!",

2) The official SSPX docuмents of July 14, 2012 and June 27, 2013 "have not properly undone the damage", and..

3) That it has been "proven that the governing policy of SSPX HQ has not changed" ????

If that is the case, good for you.

Time to stop giving the benefit of doubt to "weasel politicians" and "pathological liars" then...

If calling Francis a modernist or saying 'thank goodness we didn't sign a deal with Rome' were grounds to give them any benefit, we might as well start giving it to Obama and people of his ilk.

Word. . . . . . . . . (lingo from the streets)

Finally, the following is an excerpt from this EC, but I've arranged
it so as to make the parts corresponding to each other directly
comparable, which would have taken H.E. more ROOM to do, so
that's the reason he didn't do it.

He knew I would do it for him!! HAHAHAHA

[My additions in brackets]

Take for instance the arguments of an honourable SSPX priest who recently sent me an e-mail, accusing me of wrongly assessing the present state of the SSPX.

[And following each of his accusations, find H.E.'s response,
which compares it to the historical record of ABL.]

[For] I am no Archbishop Lefebvre, and I do not pretend to be, but does my colleague realize that all of these arguments (except the third) he could have applied thirty years ago to the Archbishop’s resistance to the official Church authorities in Rome ?

My resistance to the – as I call it – Newsociety is, he says,
1) too personally motivated --- yet the Archbishop’s resistance was:
1) motivated only by the urgent need to defend the Faith;

2) forgetting the good of the Church --- yet the Archbishop’s resistance was:
2) for the good of the Universal Church;

[The lone exception is item 3 -- so I took the liberty of............]
3) inconsistent with positions I have taken before, yet the Archbishop’s resistance was ... [after all, I was his first choice for episcopal consecration, and xspxsgbF was merely an afterthought, 'squeezed in' at the last moment, as it were, unfortunately];

4) lacking Catholic realism --- yet the Archbishop’s resistance was:
4) in a completely realistic way (as the Catholic fruits of his Society proved);

5) against Church indefectibility --- yet the Archbishop’s resistance was:
5) not disproving but proving, by his very resistance, the Church’s indefectibility;

6) for each man being his own Pope --- yet the Archbishop’s resistance was:
6) for the Church of all time being the measure of the Popes;

7) for a modernist vision of the Church --- yet the Archbishop’s resistance was:
7) against all craziness of neo-modernism;

8) Protestant --- yet the Archbishop’s resistance was:
8) against modernism’s renewal of Protestantism;

9) against union with Rome --- yet the Archbishop’s resistance was:
9) for union with the Catholic Rome of all time; and finally,

10) pushing souls away from the Church --- yet the Archbishop’s resistance was:
10) helping many truly Catholic souls to keep the Faith instead of losing it.

QUIZ QUESTION:

Can anyone guess what the only two (2) words were, that I
had to delete from +W's EC (not counting "Now," which I replaced with
"[For]"), in my rearrangement, above, of his words?

.

stgobnait · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2013, 11:50:52 AM »

'they know what spirit they are'... sspx faithful have followed the leader into placating the world, 'we are nice people,its allabout us.. you dont feel welcome in our chaplel. ? let me fix that for you...hard doctrine? no no no. look into my eyes, do i not appear kind to you? we are the same as you, my dear friend... we have compromised..

John Grace · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2013, 11:59:51 AM »

To take the comment from 'Cassini'. I don't know Cassini nor will I agree in relation to Bishop Fellay. Regarding his comment on another resistance forum.

Quote

I recall many years ago when finding refuge in a small SSPX chapel I was told in no uncertain manner that the SSPX was a priestly society, confined to member bishops and priests only. They set up their own hierarchy, their own rules and that these had nothing to do with the public who sought them out for Mass and the sacraments. And this is why I did not follow word for word, blow by blow what was going on these last couple of years within this society. It was none of my business. My association with the SSPX would be judged on what I got, saw and heard in my church.

When I heard certain priests had left or were expelled I was saddened, but that was the business of the SSPX priestly society. If they felt reason enough to leave one had to respect that. What saddened me more was that these priests, and one bishop, not satisfied to confine their protest within the society, began to tell the public they should leave SSPX churches. But more than that, for then there began the formation of a group of outsiders telling the SSPX how to run their society.

From the avalanche of criticism and cynicism I find on this thread in reply to my post I see this is the current opinion of the majority of members.
The faith in my little chapel has carried on as before, as traditional as before, as anti-Modernist as before, no matter where it is to be found or from whom, and yet a few souls have been lured away on the basis of what they have been told or read is going on inside that priestly society. No more are they to be seen regularly at Mass, regularly at devotions, or behind the statue of Our Lady of Fatima at certain times as they did for years. I understand they can travel for hours once a week to get Mass if they are lucky to have a 'resistance' priest available. Now that is a fruit I would not want on my conscience.

Thankfully the majority stayed out of the society's row and continued to make Mass their priority. Now if the above opinion is not wanted on this forum I will take my opinion away with me and God bless us all.

John Grace · « **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2013, 12:03:16 PM »

'Cassini' regarding his attack on the resistance.

Quote

No more are they to be seen regularly at Mass, regularly at devotions, or behind the statue of Our Lady of Fatima at certain times as they did for years. I understand they can travel for hours once a week to get Mass if they are lucky to have a 'resistance' priest available. Now that is a fruit I would not want on my conscience.

Cassini,

Those you refer to have what is called integrity and principle. They also have backbone.

Why would they remain assisting at the SSPX? The likes of Cassini are defending a liar and a traitor.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2013, 12:08:35 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: hollingsworth
Quote
The reason for this priest's confusion is because he puts the SSPX at the centre of his world and it is devouring him. He has invested his life in the organisation and feels it is beyond criticism.

I am wondering at this point what prevents those of us who now resist the neo-sspx from making the so-called "resistance" into a new world center, from eventually being devoured by it, and feeling finally that it is beyond criticism.

I get a hunch you're saying something important here, hollingsworth,
but I really don't know what it is. I think there is too much packed into
one sentence for me and there are too many different ways of slicing it,
so it's confusing to me. If you could make it into three or four sentences,
maybe that would help!

Quote

The priests of the neo SSPX and the laity have shown themselves not to have been worthy. They are paying the price.

I don't know about other Districts, but I never regarded the bulk of the Irish of being hardline. A few here and there, but the bulk seem to be Christian Democrats.

You can't be too harsh because in the past few years, Ireland is turning into a third world country.

It is a fulfillment of prophesy, directly from Our Lord:

"And Jesus said: For judgment I have come into this world;
that they who see not, may see; and they who see, may
become blind" (St. John, ix. 39).

Remember that, the next time a Newchurcher quips to you
that you should "judge not lest you be judged."

.

John Grace · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2013, 12:10:05 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

'they know what spirit they are'... sspx faithful have followed the leader into placating the world, 'we are nice people,its allabout us.. you dont feel welcome in our chaplel. ? let me fix that for you...hard doctrine? no no no. look into my eyes, do i not appear kind to you? we are the same as you, my dear friend... we have compromised..

Most Irish SSPX were like the lambs being lead to the slaughter. They were very passive. A few acted accordingly but the rest were blinded.