Author Topic: Father Angles is for an accord with Rome (Read 28746 times)

wallflower · « **Reply #55 on:** April 14, 2014, 11:26:59 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

words attributed to Fr. Angles:
Quote
And must I tell you, if you are in the Resistance, it is not my cup of tea, because an accord really must be made. It is necessary, otherwise we will end up schismatic . Look at Bishop Fellay. He has more power than the Pope. It is no longer supportable. I resigned from my office as a major superior because I don’t want to support it anymore. Unfortunately, the accord cannot be made with Bishop Fellay. He is completely discredited. He cannot say two words without casting doubt all over the world. "

What is the "it" which Fr. Angles does not support any longer? The SSPX, or simply the office of a major superior? I had never thought about striking an accord with Rome as the only means of overcoming or vitiating the illegitimate power of the superior general. But it does seem that this is what Fr. Angles is saying. We must reunite with the Pope in order to discredit and undermine the unlawful power of Bp. Fellay. Tell me, someone, that he is saying something differently.

This is the impression I get as well, that he cannot support the power Bp Fellay has within the SSPX and this is one reason he wants an accord. He fears becoming schismatic and sees Bp Fellay's inordinate power as a first (or most obvious) sign of heading that way. If there are translations and multiple word of mouths before those words got here though, this may not be accurate.

I believe he is for an accord, but cannot say why. It's just not the first I have heard and from people who are close to him.

Wessex · « **Reply #56 on:** April 15, 2014, 06:16:56 AM »

It is strange that so many of these senior clerics made a career distancing themselves from Rome and now want to rush into an agreement in their final years. It may be they fear dying 'outside the Church' which suggests they no longer believe in the path ABL took. I dare say if Fr. Angles believes like this, he has nothing to lose by demolishing the Society's independent line whenever he can because his goal is to be inside the mainstream which he can achieve simply by crossing over and rejoining countless of his former colleagues.. And so it seems there is officially some kind of momentum being maintained to keep things moving in the Roman direction by people who do not necessarily like each other but share in the notion that the grass will be greener on the other side.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #57 on:** April 15, 2014, 06:39:37 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

It is strange that so many of these senior clerics made a career distancing themselves from Rome and now want to rush into an agreement in their final years. It may be they fear dying 'outside the Church' which suggests they no longer believe in the path ABL took. I dare say if Fr. Angles believes like this, he has nothing to lose by demolishing the Society's independent line whenever he can because his goal is to be inside the mainstream which he can achieve simply by crossing over and rejoining countless of his former colleagues.. And so it seems there is officially some kind of momentum being maintained to keep things moving in the Roman direction by people who do not necessarily like each other but share in the notion that the grass will be greener on the other side.

Good insight, and backed by history: Bishop Rangel of Campos also wanted to reconcile before his death, and did not want to die in a state of conflict with Rome.

As we grow older, and think more about death and judgment, we are fertile ground for scruples planted by the devil.

Principles become muddled, through no fault of our own.

All the more glory to ABL for not having caved amid tremendous pressure from his own advisors and the devil.

Pray that your faith fail not.

YOu have hit the nail on the head: Scruples causes the desire for a deal (as I mentioned in my letter to Fr. Simoulin).

Azul · « **Reply #58 on:** April 15, 2014, 05:14:53 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
You (Wessex) are a liar and obviously malicious! How dare you say such things. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was perhaps the greatest saint of the 20th century. He was another St. Francis in that he held up the Church almost single handedly and preserved the Mass and Tradition for fools like you.

This is the kind of Lefebvrism which scares me to death. No, ABL was not another St. Francis. No, ABL did not "single handedly" preserve the "Mass and Tradition." No, ABL is not the "greatest saint of the 20th century." By the ancient criteria established for achieving sainthood, I'm not even sure that he is a saint, much less, the greatest one of the 20th Century.

He was very great. I should have perhaps said one of the greatest, there have been several great saints of the 20th Century. And I said "almost single handedly". He was the single most well known and respected bishop to stand against the onslaught of Vatican II. Yes, he had the help of Bishop de Castro Mayer, of sainted memory, and all of his loyal priests, of course. But God raised him up to resist the false teachings of Vatican II and he did so, heroically, until his death.

I will tell you what scares me. It is the colossal lack of familiarity with their chosen topics of conversation that is displayed by too many posters on this rather gossipy forum. From your remarks and from the fact that your opinion disagrees with Bishop Williamson, Frs. Hewko, Pfeiffer and so many others who have had the great privilege to know Archbishop Lefebvre, its obvious that you are not well qualified to speak about him. If ever anyone deserved the title of saint, it was him.

May the Good God forgive you your remarks and I would suggest some reading on the life of Archbishop Lefebvre, who no doubt will be canonized after the restoration of the Church as the great champion of Tradition that he was. We owe him a debt of gratitude that is enormous and it is about time that all who call themselves Catholic acknowledge it.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us. Amen.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #59 on:** April 15, 2014, 05:39:57 PM »

Azul:

Quote

May the Good God forgive you your remarks and I would suggest some reading on the life of Archbishop Lefebvre, who no doubt will be canonized after the restoration of the Church as the great champion of Tradition that he was. We owe him a debt of gratitude that is enormous and it is about time that all who call themselves Catholic acknowledge

I find your reaction rather unbelievable. The fact remains, whatever some of his great admirers might say, including the ones you mentioned, that ABL is, to date, not a canonized saint. You write that "no doubt" he will be canonized "after the restoration of the Church." That is, at best, hopeful speculation. ABL was certainly a "great champion" of tradition. But since he has not been canonized, he can hardly be described as the "greatest saint of the 20th century." No formal declaration of sainthood for him by the Church, or universal consensus, has ever been established? Why should I be forgiven by the "Good God" for simply stating the fact? To tell you the truth, were ABL on hand to comment on your own remarks, I feel that he would take my side, not yours.
As for your comparison of ABL with St. Francis: St. Francis has been canonized. Take for example just one criterion for the canonization of a saint: A genuine saint of the Church must be shown to have performed at least two miracles ( I think) during his lifetime. Attributed to St. Francis are countless miracles. Name one for which ABL may be credited. Let's start there.
I would need to be forgiven by the "Good God" if I had stated that ABL, already recognized as a saint by Church, was not really a saint at all in my opinion. But such is not the case here.