Sean Johnson has resurrected this timely piece of history in his substack, with a few pertinent introductory remarks:In the following installment, Dom Thomas Aquinas (prior of Santa Cruz Monastery in Brazil) responds to objections regarding the planned episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure (a priest originally selected by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, who deferred and recommended +de Galarreta instead), and explains why episcopal consecrations are necessary. The answer is clear: The SSPX is leaving the combat for the faith.
The SSPX would denounce the consecration, and Fr. Francois Laisney would allege “striking contrasts” between the 2015 and 1988 consecrations, principal among them, the fact that +Williamson never sought approval from modernist Rome. Evidently, he’d forgotten that when the SSPX consecrated Licinio Rangel a bishop for Campos, there was no attempt to gain approval from Rome.
But the protest was more posturing for Roman consumption than genuine objection: Menzingen was still angling for a canonical accord, and by condemning the planned consecration for proceeding without Roman permission, they hoped to be seen as loyal and obedient in Rome.
Why a consecration in 2015?
Because the situation remains essentially the same as in 1988. Modernist Rome, which manifested itself at the Council, remains in place and becomes more and more modernist and liberal. The profound perversion of the mind is only intensifying.But why not wait for the Society of St. Pius X to give us bishops?Because the authorities of the Society have taken a new direction in relations with Rome.
Do you mean to say that the Society has abandoned the true faith or the fight for the faith?
I mean to say that the leaders of the Society have gradually in recent years, and especially since 2011 and 2012, taken a new direction in their relations with Rome.
But the question is whether or not the Society has abandoned the fight for the faith. What do you think?
The peculiarity of liberals is inconsistency. The current leaders of the Society have made the fight of the Society inconsistent. The healthy part of the Society is trying to fight this battle as in the past, but the dominant wing, its Superior General at the top with Fr. Pfluger, persecute those who want to continue this fight as before.
Do you have any proof of that?
It is all too abundant. The refusal to ordain the Dominican and Capuchin candidates at the appointed time in 2012 is one. The Benedictines of Bellaigue were also threatened. But much more serious and significant was the scandalous expulsion of Bishop Williamson, preceded by the order to cease the Eleison Comments. In fact Menzingen does not tolerate us opposing its new orientation. Menzingen does not want us to publicly continue the fight for the faith as before, following Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer. The district priests are closely monitored and their articles cannot be published without quite strict permission.
But what harm is there in that? Every institution must monitor what is being said in its name!
Not like that. We must punish those who write against the Catholic faith, but not install a regime like the one Bishop Fellay already did. In addition, those with a liberal tendency have broad permission to write, while the book of Father Pivert is removed from sale. Le Sel de la Terre is frowned upon and removed from press stands. The most faithful priests are disavowed or even punished or expelled. Unfortunately, examples abound. The list is already long enough, while the GREC was able to work peacefully and Father Pflüger gives his scandalous interviews without being disturbed.
But there are good articles in Le Chardonnet, for example. Isn’t it wrong to say that the anti-liberals are persecuted in the Society?
Yes, there are still some good articles in Le Chardonnet, and not only in Le Chardonnet. Unfortunately, this is far from preventing the accordist tendency of Menzingen from moving forward.
Do you mean, basically, that Menzingen is betraying the fight for the faith?
Yes, Menzingen is betraying the fight for the faith. That is why a consecration has become necessary to assure the continuity of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, especially as Bishop Fellay now refuses to ordain candidates opposed to his policy, as is the case for several religious communities of men to whom he also refuses the Holy Oils (necessary to baptize children and give extreme unction to the dying).
“We continue,” very simply, as Archbishop Lefebvre used to say. And we believe that good Catholics support us from the bottom of their heart. If we seem to be too hard towards Menzingen, take the time to go through the long series of events that have marked the history of Tradition in recent years and you will see that the two most combative bishops of Tradition were, one, expelled from the Society, the other, silenced, at least in part. Added to this are the iniquitous trials of Fr. Pinaud and Fr. Salenave, and still so many facts.
What do you think about the candidate chosen?
He was chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. He proposed another name. It is to his credit. Today he accepts this heavy burden. We are deeply grateful to him. To conclude, let us also and especially give our gratitude to Bishop Williamson who knew how to protect and transmit the legacy received from the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, which is none other than the deposit of the faith entrusted by Our Lord to the Apostles.
A final appeal: Read the works of Archbishop Lefebvre. Everything is there. Read also the Eleison Comments to understand the seriousness of the current evil. Corçâo said: “Only the saints believe in evil.” Deep words which are a warning. May Our Lady help us to see the evil where it is, to work with her, she who has always crushed the head of the infernal serpent. “Ipsa conteret.” That is the motto of Bishop Jean-Michel Faure. May Our Lady bless him and protect him “ad multos annos”.
Topic: Episcopal Consecration of Fr Faure by Bishop Williamson- Dom Thomas Aquinas 2015 (Read 155 times)