Author Topic: Eleison Comments 485 (Read 2879 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **on:** October 29, 2016, 02:19:27 PM »

Number CDLXXXV (485)

October 29, 2016
Disintegration

It’s true, we men today are broken down,
But that can brighten many a heavenly crown.

Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold,
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of a passionate intensity.

These famous lines from The Second Coming, a poem written in 1919 in the wake of the First World War by the Anglo-Irish poet, W.B.Yeats (1865–1939), come to mind as a possible explanation of how the movement of resistance to the 2012 betrayal of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St Pius X can be so strong in truth and yet weak in unity and numbers. 1919 is nearly a hundred years ago, and Yeats was neither Catholic nor particularly concerned with the condition of the Catholic Church, which did then seem to be flourishing. But poets can be visionaries, and Yeats caught in these lines an essential truth about Western civilisation as it emerged from that war that was “putting out the lights all over Europe” (Earl Grey): the Western nations were spiritually disintegrating in a process uninterrupted ever since.

Nevertheless many Catholics today who wish the Faith to survive are upset by the apparent weakness of the “Resistance” of Archbishop Lefebvre’s own priests in particular to the obvious betrayal of his principles by their present leaders, and they look for an explanation. Some think that the SSPX priests do not take a public stand against the false conciliation of Tradition with Vatican II because they are scared of being thrown out of the Society with nowhere to sleep and nothing to eat. But the priests have to know that there are layfolk who would be glad to support them. A deeper explanation might be that the priests are scared of cutting themselves out of that Society which is both their human family and the framework by which they belong to the structural Church. But again with a strong enough faith they would know that Providence can supply for both needs.

On the other hand if we set the 2012 sell-out of the Society in the context of the double disintegration of the two World Wars, followed by the far more terrible disintegration of the Catholic Church at Vatican II (1962–1965), then we must admire the heroic feat of Archbishop Lefebvre in gathering together flying fragments from that unprecedented explosion, but we can hardly be surprised if the Society of St Pius X should in turn explode from within, or if refugees from its disintegration should have difficulty in re-integrating without. Things have fallen apart, and minds and hearts with them. I think that there is not enough integrity or integration left in hearts and minds for us to be able to think of repeating the Archbishop’s feat. We are nearly 50 years downhill from 1970 when the Archbishop founded the SSPX.

What that means is not that there is nothing to be done, but that what is to be done must be worke d out more from God’s point of view and less from man’s. At the very end of the world, God will allow the Faith almost to disappear (Lk XVIII, 8), but there will still be a few souls believing, hoping and loving. In 2016 he is giving us a foretaste of that disappearance, but souls should be able to recognize that they still have considerable freedom to believe, hope and love. And they should be able to foresee that even the most powerful of police states will not have the power to stop them from doing so. Moreover, the more heavily circuмstances are made to weigh upon that freedom, the more glorious in Heaven will be the persevering devotion of any soul to God, to his divine Son and to the Blessed Virgin, and the greater will be the merits of that soul. Above all, the greater will be its unstoppable contribution to the welfare of the Church. All is by no means lost, and it can never be lost. God’s Church is not a merely human affair.

Kyrie eleison.

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2016, 03:34:16 PM »

This post of Bishop Williamson’s should be given careful consideration. The resistance is a failure because it wanted to be a little SSPX. What a terrible idea! The SSPX is a failed business model. Why would anyone want to construct their operation on a failed model? What is worse, the resistance has no idea why the SSPX is a failed model. Is anyone given this any thought besides Bishop Williamson?

Failure was imbedded in the SSPX from the beginning because of they treated liturgy as a matter of mere discipline, and because of their utter failure to understand the nature of dogma as dogma, but beyond this, even if these errors had not been present, there remains their outdated business model of operation. Like launching a ship with the port holes below the water line, it could not be expected to stay afloat.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2016, 05:24:08 PM »

MA:

Quote

This post of Bishop Williamson’s should be given careful consideration. The resistance is a failure because it wanted to be a little SSPX.

Not quite. The "resistance" is a failure, (at least here in the U.S.) because a screwball priest decided to set up a screwball seminary in an effort to replicate and revive a screwball Lefebvrian idea. His "little SSPX" was a failure from the beginning. It was still born. It never had a chance, because its founder was ill equipped spiritually, (and I believe morally), to undertake the task. The "resistance" was not the failure of the lay faithful. It was the failure of an errant sspx cleric, and, perhaps, a couple of other priests who went along with him. Please do not refer to the failed "resistance" as an 'it.' The failed resistance is embodied in an errant cleric. Too harsh a judgment? Maybe. If so, God will certainly judge me.

Bp. Williamson said from the beginning the old SSPX model could not be revived. It was over. It ought to be abandoned in favor of independent chapels, operated by independent priests, in loose federation with one another. But this particular cleric would have none of that. No, he went off half-cocked on his own path of "resistance." Look where it's gotten him, and, alas, look where it's gotten numbers of the faithful, who to this day, wander about with their heads in a dark place.

Now he's a declared enemy of the bishop, warning whomever will listen that the bishop has all but sold out the traditional cause and gone back to the NO, and supports the New Mass.

I repeat it's not a failed resistance; it's a failed priest, who, on his own initiative and under his own auspices, marketed a neo-Lefebvrian product which he could never really sell, and which, ultimately, has caused no end of confusion and added division.

John Grace · « **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2016, 06:32:52 AM »

A great piece from the Bishop. Grey went on to say that 'we shall not see them lit again in our life-time'. The late Mrs Pearse here in Ireland said a light went out when the English executed her two sons, Patrick and Willie. Things were never the same.

Since I was 12 I have been telling people that Pearse was a great man. Had he lived and had Germany won the war both Ireland and Europe would be better. Seán South, killed by the RIC would be in his 80s today. I have no doubt he would be firmly behind the resistance if he were alive. The great man from Limerick, who established Father Fahey's organisation in his city.

The British brought division here in Ireland. Between the two world wars Ireland had the War of Independence and the cινιℓ ωαr. Even to this day people vote adopting a cινιℓ ωαr politics. People tend to vote on how their father and their father voted.

Many from Ireland went and fought for Catholic Spain. In 1932 the Eucharistic congress was held here and as the Bishop says the faith was flourishing.

The guerilla warfare of 1920s Ireland has been applied to the resistance. Pockets of Catholics keeping the faith, the loose network. Ireland is spiritually disintegrating.

Quote

What that means is not that there is nothing to be done, but that what is to be done must be worke d out more from God’s point of view and less from man’s. At the very end of the world, God will allow the Faith almost to disappear (Lk XVIII, 8), but there will still be a few souls believing, hoping and loving. In 2016 he is giving us a foretaste of that disappearance, but souls should be able to recognize that they still have considerable freedom to believe, hope and love.

There is no doubt there is an appearance of the faith disappearing. It's the few who are keeping the faith.

John Grace · « **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2016, 06:37:28 AM »

Maud Gonne McBride converted to Catholicism and turned down the marriage proposals from W.B Yeats. His unwillingness to convert to Catholicism was a factor in her turning down marriage. Her daughter Iseult Gonne married Francis Stuart, who was involved in radio from Germany during the second world war.

JPaul · « **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2016, 10:10:28 AM »

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora

This post of Bishop Williamson’s should be given careful consideration. The resistance is a failure because it wanted to be a little SSPX. What a terrible idea! The SSPX is a failed business model. Why would anyone want to construct their operation on a failed model? What is worse, the resistance has no idea why the SSPX is a failed model. Is anyone given this any thought besides Bishop Williamson?

Failure was imbedded in the SSPX from the beginning because of they treated liturgy as a matter of mere discipline, and because of their utter failure to understand the nature of dogma as dogma, but beyond this, even if these errors had not been present, there remains their outdated business model of operation. Like launching a ship with the port holes below the water line, it could not be expected to stay afloat.

I have said from the beginning, that attempting to recreate an SSPX petite
would end in similar manner as the original model had been shown to have expired on the shelf. Expecting a different result is folly.

Movements which are built upon personalities will always rise and fall when such men inevitably falter. Christ is the only constant, and it is by Him alone, that anything in this world stands

AJNC · « **Reply #6 on:** October 30, 2016, 10:51:10 AM »

Quote from: JPaul

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
This post of Bishop Williamson’s should be given careful consideration. The resistance is a failure because it wanted to be a little SSPX. What a terrible idea! The SSPX is a failed business model. Why would anyone want to construct their operation on a failed model? What is worse, the resistance has no idea why the SSPX is a failed model. Is anyone given this any thought besides Bishop Williamson?

Failure was imbedded in the SSPX from the beginning because of they treated liturgy as a matter of mere discipline, and because of their utter failure to understand the nature of dogma as dogma, but beyond this, even if these errors had not been present, there remains their outdated business model of operation. Like launching a ship with the port holes below the water line, it could not be expected to stay afloat.

I have said from the beginning, that attempting to recreate an SSPX petite
would end in similar manner as the original model had been shown to have expired on the shelf. Expecting a different result is folly.

Movements which are built upon personalities will always rise and fall when such men inevitably falter. Christ is the only constant, and it is by Him alone, that anything in this world stands

An interesting post from the Demeaned Brothers today (October 30th):

Malachi Martin

About This Website | Catholic Church

I don't agree with you on Malichi Martin, I think you are of the devil.

Charlotte

MHFM: No, you are of the Devil. Malachi Martin (that's his name) was a docuмented heretic, who mixed truth with lies. To name just one of his heresies, he praised pagan Native American religions. Someone who does that doesn't have the Catholic faith. You are clueless and blind, and you reject the truth made available to you.

Moreover, part of the reason that people like you often react so defensively when people like Malachi Martin or Gruner or false traditionalist priests are rightfully denounced is that you have no true and independent relationship with God, and no depth of understanding of the Catholic faith. Your ‘faith’ amounts to basically nothing more than what you’ve heard from those people or the confidence you place in them. You only have a natural ‘faith’. Thus, when the ‘source’ for some of the conclusions you’ve reached is exposed or denounced, you respond in the way that you have because an attack on those people threatens the entire foundation of what you’ve come to ‘believe’. Yours is only a natural faith of certain conclusions you’ve adopted from men, not a true supernatural faith which is independent of man, being firmly rooted in and based on God’s revelation. You know nothing about God or the Catholic faith.

Incredulous · « **Reply #7 on:** October 30, 2016, 11:02:59 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Maud Gonne McBride converted to Catholicism and turned down the marriage proposals from W.B Yeats. His unwillingness to convert to Catholicism was a factor in her turning down marriage. Her daughter Iseult Gonne married Francis Stuart, who was involved in radio from Germany during the second world war.

I always love to read your posts of Irish Catholic history John!

Please post often and give us more! :ready-to-eat:

A Blessed Feast of Christ the King to you and yours.

Incredulous · « **Reply #8 on:** October 30, 2016, 11:11:36 AM »

Quote from: JPaul

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora
This post of Bishop Williamson’s should be given careful consideration. The resistance is a failure because it wanted to be a little SSPX. What a terrible idea! The SSPX is a failed business model. Why would anyone want to construct their operation on a failed model? What is worse, the resistance has no idea why the SSPX is a failed model. Is anyone given this any thought besides Bishop Williamson?

Failure was imbedded in the SSPX from the beginning because of they treated liturgy as a matter of mere discipline, and because of their utter failure to understand the nature of dogma as dogma, but beyond this, even if these errors had not been present, there remains their outdated business model of operation. Like launching a ship with the port holes below the water line, it could not be expected to stay afloat.

I have said from the beginning, that attempting to recreate an SSPX petite
would end in similar manner as the original model had been shown to have expired on the shelf. Expecting a different result is folly.

Movements which are built upon personalities will always rise and fall when such men inevitably falter. Christ is the only constant, and it is by Him alone, that anything in this world stands

Unfortunately... this one ain't "petite".

And this one, ain't "on the shelf"..... yet.

It's an active predator trying to devour the "Resistants".

RogerThat · « **Reply #9 on:** October 30, 2016, 06:51:00 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

MA:
Quote
This post of Bishop Williamson’s should be given careful consideration. The resistance is a failure because it wanted to be a little SSPX.

Not quite. The "resistance" is a failure, (at least here in the U.S.) because a screwball priest decided to set up a screwball seminary in an effort to replicate and revive a screwball Lefebvrian idea. His "little SSPX" was a failure from the beginning. It was still born. It never had a chance, because its founder was ill equipped spiritually, (and I believe morally), to undertake the task. The "resistance" was not the failure of the lay faithful. It was the failure of an errant sspx cleric, and, perhaps, a couple of other priests who went along with him. Please do not refer to the failed "resistance" as an 'it.' The failed resistance is embodied in an errant cleric. Too harsh a judgment? Maybe. If so, God will certainly judge me.

Bp. Williamson said from the beginning the old SSPX model could not be revived. It was over. It ought to be abandoned in favor of independent chapels, operated by independent priests, in loose federation with one another. But this particular cleric would have none of that. No, he went off half-cocked on his own path of "resistance." Look where it's gotten him, and, alas, look where it's gotten numbers of the faithful, who to this day, wander about with their heads in a dark place.

Now he's a declared enemy of the bishop, warning whomever will listen that the bishop has all but sold out the traditional cause and gone back to the NO, and supports the New Mass.

I repeat it's not a failed resistance; it's a failed priest, who, on his own initiative and under his own auspices, marketed a neo-Lefebvrian product which he could never really sell, and which, ultimately, has caused no end of confusion and added division.

I respectfully disagree with you.
That "failed" priest, believe it or not, layed the foundation for most of the independent chapels in the country.
The reason why the resistance is a failure in the US (Don't know about its state in other countries and, as a result, I can't judge) is because of the faithful.
Every few weeks for the past 2 years, we would get posts and letters from the priests saying "The ink has dried, they are now with Rome." Week after week after week. Even on this forum. And, guess what, it's been years and we are still right where we started: no deal, no changes, just more faithful who feel they know better than their parish priests. It's hard to believe in a cause when the premise of the cause (i.e.: reconciliation with ROme) is a smoke screen.

Also, the faithful here in the US aren't listening to Bishop Williamson. TIme after Time, he goes around the country and speaks about how the Novus Ordo Sacraments are, indeed, valid because ex opere operato but still I have found that most of the resistance faithful are closet sedes or do not believe in the validity of the sacraments celebrated by SSPX priests, etc. It's a mess. Just look at this forum and the different opinions expressed therein.

Also, the historical evidence is important. Archbishop Lefevbre DID INDEED meet with Rome and kept communication open until the day he passed. Many faithful of the Resistance and even some priests now re-write history to say that this never occurred. FALSE.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Look at the fruits.
The resistance is broken and split, with priests fighting for control, the faithful falling into heresies, and discord among members.
Meanwhile, the SSPX will be blessing 1 new seminary with another new seminary project on the way, a record number of seminarians, new chapels being built around the world, a rosary crusade that is most pleasing to Our Lady, etc.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #10 on:** October 30, 2016, 08:33:12 PM »

roger that:

Quote

Look at the fruits.
The resistance is broken and split, with priests fighting for control, the faithful falling into heresies, and discord among members.
Meanwhile, the SSPX will be blessing 1 new seminary with another new seminary project on the way, a record number of seminarians, new chapels being built around the world, a rosary crusade that is most pleasing to Our Lady, etc.

So Roger, you're saying that the "resistance" folks made a mistake? They should high tail it back to Fellay & Co. and throw themselves upon the mercy of the sspx? They should recognize that God is blessing the sspx with new seminaries and new chapels, and plead with H.E. and his people for re-admittance? Is that your pitch? :sad:

RogerThat · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2016, 11:56:54 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

roger that:
Quote
Look at the fruits.
The resistance is broken and split, with priests fighting for control, the faithful falling into heresies, and discord among members.
Meanwhile, the SSPX will be blessing 1 new seminary with another new seminary project on the way, a record number of seminarians, new chapels being built around the world, a rosary crusade that is most pleasing to Our Lady, etc.

So Roger, you're saying that the "resistance" folks made a mistake? They should high tail it back to Fellay & Co. and throw themselves upon the mercy of the sspx? They should recognize that God is blessing the sspx with new seminaries and new chapels, and plead with H.E. and his people for re-admittance? Is that your pitch? :sad:

No because I don't know what every person's own conscience entails and that is not my job. I am not an SSPX priest or a paid spokesperson.

What I am saying is that, objectively, if one were to look at the Resistance today, it is in a state of chaos. Priests argue over jurisdiction, the faithful are not unified on fundamental issues (is Pope Francis Pope or not? Do SSPX priests celebrate valid sacraments or not? Do Novus Ordo priests celebrate valid sacraments or not? etc.), etc.
I think Bishop Williamson is one of the wisest bishops the church has ever seen. But, I think, unfortunately, the resistance priests (and, to some extent, the faithful) do not have the life experience or the knowledge to meet his excellency's vision and ideas and thought and, as a result, it's truly chaotic because his excellency doesn't believe he should or can lead (Which I agree with.). So, as you can see, it is very conflicting and an odd situation and Bishop Williamson has spoken of this himself. I encourage you to watch his recent conference from St. Mary, Kansas where he speaks about how much of a mess the Resistance is.

Should people go back to the SSPX? I don't know. That's not my place to say.
For me, personally, I used to attend an independent chapel after I left the SSPX only to return to the SSPX a couple of months ago and my conscience is clear. The homilies are solid, the sacraments are valid, and that's all I care about because all I want/need is heaven and I know that the SSPX down the street will provide me with the sacraments I need to get there. I will not comment on why I left the independent chapel publicly.

Incredulous · « **Reply #12 on:** October 31, 2016, 01:17:33 AM »

quote: Holly
So Roger, you're saying that the "resistance" folks made a mistake? They should high tail it back to Fellay & Co. and throw themselves upon the mercy of the sspx? They should recognize that God is blessing the sspx with new seminaries and new chapels, and plead with H.E. and his people for re-admittance? Is that your pitch? :sad:[/quote]

quote=RogerThat
No because I don't know what every person's own conscience entails and that is not my job. I am not an SSPX priest or a paid spokesperson.

What I am saying is that, objectively, if one were to look at the Resistance today, it is in a state of chaos. Priests argue over jurisdiction, the faithful are not unified on fundamental issues (is Pope Francis Pope or not? Do SSPX priests celebrate valid sacraments or not? Do Novus Ordo priests celebrate valid sacraments or not? etc.), etc.
I think Bishop Williamson is one of the wisest bishops the church has ever seen. But, I think, unfortunately, the resistance priests (and, to some extent, the faithful) do not have the life experience or the knowledge to meet his excellency's vision and ideas and thought and, as a result, it's truly chaotic because his excellency doesn't believe he should or can lead (Which I agree with.). So, as you can see, it is very conflicting and an odd situation and Bishop Williamson has spoken of this himself. I encourage you to watch his recent conference from St. Mary, Kansas where he speaks about how much of a mess the Resistance is.

Should people go back to the SSPX? I don't know. That's not my place to say.
For me, personally, I used to attend an independent chapel after I left the SSPX only to return to the SSPX a couple of months ago and my conscience is clear. The homilies are solid, the sacraments are valid, and that's all I care about because all I want/need is heaven and I know that the SSPX down the street will provide me with the sacraments I need to get there. I will not comment on why I left the independent chapel publicly.
_____________________________________________________________________________

I'm listening to you Roger, but it isn't adding-up? It strikes that you at odds with yourself.

1. If you like +W, how can you be going to the xSPX ? (It seems a contradiction?)
Has not Bp. Williamson beat Msgr. Fellay over the head innumerable times?

2. The Resistance is in shambles and that's a tell tale sign of abandonment by the bishops.
The sheep will be scattered. And it seems this was partially caused by +W's loosey-goosey,
non-command organizational strategy. Does he have a back-up plan, since that is failing?

We are the lost sheep without hierarchy or leaders... just souls wandering :shocked:
Confusion and discord will naturally take-over in only a few months of that.

3. The SSPX has solid homilies? Sure, they have solid Novus ordo, non-reality sermons,
that fail to confront the perpetrators and avoid the issues and the truth.

4. "...and that's all I care about because all I want/need is heaven".
Seven hard years of evidence and facts, point to the SSPX's betrayal of the Faith to
newChurch. They are with Pope Bergy in spirit and soon to be contractually.

You better recalculate the fare on your ticket to Heaven with them, cause you know
too much and you're hiding from the reality of their sell-out.

5. Independent chapels are all over the map, but so what? We've got to be tough, suffer a
little and "man-up". The Blessed Virgin has warned us we will lose the Mass and all will
seem lost, before she intervenes.

In conclusion, let's hold fast to Traditions and not compromise the Faith, like the poor, worldly, xSPX.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #13 on:** October 31, 2016, 09:39:39 AM »

Roger:

Quote

I think Bishop Williamson is one of the wisest bishops the church has ever seen.

If that is the case, why are you now back in the sspx, a troubled, exhausted apostolate whose present relevance and effectiveness this wisest of bishops has all but rejected?

Roger:

Quote

But, I think, unfortunately, the resistance priests (and, to some extent, the faithful) do not have the life experience or the knowledge to meet his excellency's vision and ideas and thought and, as a result, it's truly chaotic because his excellency doesn't believe he should or can lead (Which I agree with.).

Not only do the "resistance priests" not have the "life experience," I think they have proven, to my satisfaction anyway, that they do not even have much integrity and common human decency, particularly Fr. Pfeiffer This priest has, in effect, stolen $20,000 from a fellow priest. He has, ironically, called that same priest a thief. He has in his 'employ' a Mexican gentleman, who many call a "devil,'" a description with which I am in utter accord. He tried to foist upon the faithful a "bishop," who, in fact, was discovered later not to be a bishop at all- not even a Roman Catholic, for that matter. The "resistance priests" have certainly not delivered. You are right about that.

The situation is chaotic. His Excellency recognizes this reality on the ground, and confesses he can do little to bring about a solution. He recognizes, in the end, that few will really listen to him anyway.

But does that mean that we should scurry back to sspx? Fellay & Co have proven just as conclusively that they are not equipped to deliver the goods either. +Fellay, IMHO, is a liar and a fraud. He has sold out the legacy of the Archbishop. He has become, IMO, a creature of the Jєωs. That wisest of bishops, to whom you refer, calls +Fellay "a rat." Furthermore, IMO, Fellay has personal ambitions to which he will happily sacrifice the faithful, and give up the purposes for which Lefebvre's organization was originally established.

Roger:

Quote

Should people go back to the SSPX? I don't know. That's not my place to say. For me, personally, I used to attend an independent chapel after I left the SSPX only to return to the SSPX a couple of months ago and my conscience is clear. The homilies are solid, the sacraments are valid, and that's all I care about because all I want/need is heaven and I know that the SSPX down the street will provide me with the sacraments I need to get there. I will not comment on why I left the independent chapel publicly.

So, the "homilies are solid," are they? The "sacraments are valid," are they? They'll get you to heaven, will they? Hmm! OK. Who am I, an ordinary layman, to tell you otherwise? We were at ICC in Post Falls for ten years. I wouldn't set foot in the place again for all the tea in China, valid sacraments and solid homilies notwithstanding. I'll take my chances by plunging forward into the great future unknown. God help us all!

JPaul · « **Reply #14 on:** November 01, 2016, 08:01:33 AM »

All going to prove that getting overly involved with this or that sect and their required loyalties, is subversive and detrimental to the peace in one's soul and does not contribute to their eternal salvation.