Author Topic: Father Peter Scott (Read 29500 times)

Miseremini · « **on:** September 16, 2012, 02:15:02 PM »

Father Peter Scott whose many written articles have given us much spiritual direction for many years has been yanked from Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in Canada and is being transferred to Africa. Father has only been here a short time, 3 or 4 years and has done a tremendous job starting a school and ministering to the faithful.
First we lost Father Fox last month because he stood his ground against the agreement with Rome and now Father Scott.
Hopefully Father Scott will continue to write although I doubt Angelus Press will publish his articles.
We will miss them terribly.
Time for an SSPX split ! We can't loose anymore devout priests.

Domitilla · « **Reply #1 on:** September 16, 2012, 02:28:51 PM »

Yesterday we celebrated the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Truly, she is so very sorrowful today. Her faithful priest-sons are being persecuted and slandered, while the hirelings are being elevated and honored. Kyrie Eleison!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** September 16, 2012, 02:37:32 PM »

Some of the more prominent and gifted priests are the ones that are getting into trouble with the Fellayites. Are so many of the laity blind, or do they just not care? Maybe they want a "kinder, gentler" (imo, not so kind and gentle - just more worldly and corrupt) Tradition?

Sigismund · « **Reply #3 on:** September 16, 2012, 02:41:48 PM »

The SSPX in a Society of Common Life without Vows. I assume that means with out anything like a vow of stability. Can't Fr. Scott just leave? Why would he or anyone put up with this nonsense if they don't have to?

Sienna629 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 16, 2012, 05:11:14 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

The SSPX in a Society of Common Life without Vows. I assume that means with out anything like a vow of stability. Can't Fr. Scott just leave? Why would he or anyone put up with this nonsense if they don't have to?

Remember, obedience.

John McFarland · « **Reply #5 on:** September 16, 2012, 06:07:11 PM »

Miserermini,

I hope this doesn't sound impertinent, but do you have evidence that Fr. Scott has been shipped to Africa because of his opposition to the SSPX leadership?

Fr. Pazat was shipped from Winons to Africa a few years back, and as far as I know, the reason was that they needed somebody in Africa, and Fr. Pazat was chosen.

If you do have evidence, I would note that the leadership is the leadership. If they want to keep people from causing trouble, they are certainly within their rights to do that.

Furthermore, one has to wonder about the holiness of any priest who makes trouble for his superiors.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** September 16, 2012, 06:13:49 PM »

Quote

Furthermore, one has to wonder about the holiness of any priest who makes trouble for his superiors.

So I guess they'd better start following their ordinaries.

People like you are responsible for transforming the SSPX into a veritable cult.

John McFarland · « **Reply #7 on:** September 16, 2012, 06:13:59 PM »

Sigismund,

Like the centurion of Capharnum, the priests of the SSPX are men subject to authority, and some of them have men under them. They are expected to do as they are told, and expect those under them to do as they are told.

It is a very rare man indeed who is not subject to authority.

I don't know if this is true of you, but a remarkably large number of people around here seem to think that +Williamson and Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal are perfectly within their rights to do as they jolly well please based entirely on their own judgments of things.

If this is Catholicism, I wonder what liberalism looks like. Is Bishop Williamson's idol not ABL, but Murray Rothbard?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** September 16, 2012, 06:20:24 PM »

Quote from: John McFarland

Sigismund,

Like the centurion of Capharnum, the priests of the SSPX are men subject to authority, and some of them have men under them. They are expected to do as they are told, and expect those under them to do as they are told.

It is a very rare man indeed who is not subject to authority.

I don't know if this is true of you, but a remarkably large number of people around here seem to think that +Williamson and Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal are perfectly within their rights to do as they jolly well please based entirely on their own judgments of things.

If this is Catholicism, I wonder what liberalism looks like. Is Bishop Williamson's idol not ABL, but Murray Rothbard?

And Bishop Fellay is subject to the Pope? Is that why Bishop Fellay said he hopes Vatican II can become part of the great tradition of the Church?

You are not at all refuting Sigismund's post, just showing that SSPX fanatics are broken vessels so far as the intellect is concerned.

Mathieu · « **Reply #9 on:** September 16, 2012, 06:28:50 PM »

Quote from: John McFarland

They are expected to do as they are told, and expect those under them to do as they are told.

It is a very rare man indeed who is not subject to authority.

John, I am not sure if you ever answered my question a few weeks ago, so I wanted to post it again and ask you to address it if you would

Quote

SSPX ordinations are illicit: Vatican spokesman
CWN - July 05, 2011

The ordinations of new priests within the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are “illegitimate,” the Vatican’s top spokesman has told reporters.

Answering reporters’ questions about the traditionalist group, Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, pointed out that although Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunication of the bishops who head the SSPX, those bishops remain suspended from ministry.

Father Lombardi cited the Pope’s letter to the world’s bishops, issued on March 10, 2009. The Pope said in that letter that the SSPX “has no canonical status” and consequently its leaders “do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

You are very concerned about obedience and authority and the seeming "subversion" of authority.

Please explain to me:

1. How is it consistent with your viewpoint that Bishop Fellay can continue to ordain priests after the vatican has forbidden them (as above), and you can explain clearly how he is not disobeying legitimate authority by doing so?

2. How is it consistent with your view on obedience that your son has agreed to the above illicit/illegal ordination under the direction and order of the above disobedient Superior General this year?

Your view on obedience and your assessment of the "disobedience" of others, especially priests and bishops makes it necessary for you to show your consistency of viewpoint in this most important of issues - your support for someone (Bishop Fellay, etc.) who is publicly and flagrantly disobedient to the Rome by which you are judging everyone else's disobedience.

Thank you.

AntiFellayism · « **Reply #10 on:** September 16, 2012, 06:53:17 PM »

Quote from: Mathieu

Quote from: John McFarland
They are expected to do as they are told, and expect those under them to do as they are told.

It is a very rare man indeed who is not subject to authority.

John, I am not sure if you ever answered my question a few weeks ago, so I wanted to post it again and ask you to address it if you would

Quote
SSPX ordinations are illicit: Vatican spokesman
CWN - July 05, 2011

The ordinations of new priests within the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are “illegitimate,” the Vatican’s top spokesman has told reporters.

Answering reporters’ questions about the traditionalist group, Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, pointed out that although Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunication of the bishops who head the SSPX, those bishops remain suspended from ministry.

Father Lombardi cited the Pope’s letter to the world’s bishops, issued on March 10, 2009. The Pope said in that letter that the SSPX “has no canonical status” and consequently its leaders “do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

You are very concerned about obedience and authority and the seeming "subversion" of authority.

Please explain to me:

1. How is it consistent with your viewpoint that Bishop Fellay can continue to ordain priests after the vatican has forbidden them (as above), and you can explain clearly how he is not disobeying legitimate authority by doing so?

2. How is it consistent with your view on obedience that your son has agreed to the above illicit/illegal ordination under the direction and order of the above disobedient Superior General this year?

Your view on obedience and your assessment of the "disobedience" of others, especially priests and bishops makes it necessary for you to show your consistency of viewpoint in this most important of issues - your support for someone (Bishop Fellay, etc.) who is publicly and flagrantly disobedient to the Rome by which you are judging everyone else's disobedience.

Thank you.

Or how can Fr. Bouchacourt publicly condemn Bishop Williamson and still be praised on $$px.org and St. Mary's???

Isn't bishops superior than priests???

What a bunch of hypocrites !!!

Sigismund · « **Reply #11 on:** September 16, 2012, 07:24:04 PM »

Quote from: Sienna629

Quote from: Sigismund
The SSPX in a Society of Common Life without Vows. I assume that means with out anything like a vow of stability. Can't Fr. Scott just leave? Why would he or anyone put up with this nonsense if they don't have to?

Remember, obedience.

It is a society without vows. He must be obedient as long as he is a member, but there is nothing preventing him from leaving. I don't think he even needs anyone's permission to withdraw.

Sigismund · « **Reply #12 on:** September 16, 2012, 07:26:17 PM »

Quote from: John McFarland

.

Furthermore, one has to wonder about the holiness of any priest who makes trouble for his superiors.

Well, Archbishop Lefebvre certainly made a pile of trouble for his superiors? Do you wonder about his holiness?

Sigismund · « **Reply #13 on:** September 16, 2012, 07:35:48 PM »

Quote from: John McFarland

Sigismund,

Like the centurion of Capharnum, the priests of the SSPX are men subject to authority, and some of them have men under them. They are expected to do as they are told, and expect those under them to do as they are told.

It is a very rare man indeed who is not subject to authority.

I don't know if this is true of you, but a remarkably large number of people around here seem to think that +Williamson and Frs. Pfeiffer and Chazal are perfectly within their rights to do as they jolly well please based entirely on their own judgments of things.

If this is Catholicism, I wonder what liberalism looks like. Is Bishop Williamson's idol not ABL, but Murray Rothbard?

They subjected themselves to the authority of the SSPX of their own free will, and have taken no vows to remain under that authority. I agree that they should obey their superiors as long as they are members of the society, but they are under no obligation that I can see to stay there.

I also find it a bit rich for the SSPX or their apologists to talk much about obedience. The Archbishop owed obedience to the Vicar of Christ, but he founded a religious society, established seminaries and parishes, and ordained priests and bishops not only without the pope's permission but against his expressed wishes. It is not clear to me why he was able to say that the situation in the Church justified disobedience to the successor of St Peter but some priest can't use the same argument to justify abandoning the authority of a bishop without jurisdiction as he goes about a Stalinist purge of both history ant the people who clearly remember it.

Miseremini · « **Reply #14 on:** September 16, 2012, 07:51:30 PM »

I'm getting really confused! ! ! Throughout this thread and this site so many are talking about disobedience. WHERE IS THE DISOBEDIENCE?? I see a lot of CRITICISM. ....criticism in the way of CORRECTION. How is it disobedient to correct someone you believe to be in error? All the SSPX priests joined the Fraternity to promote tradition therefore how can they be disobedient to +Fellay by continuing to do so? Did they take an oath not to contradict him if he was in error? Are they to remain silent and let the faithful follow error when they see it? I haven't ever heard a priest directly be overly disrespectful of him (but I've read many 2 and 3rd had quotes that were).
How can +Williamson be DISOBEDIENT by doing exactly what he was consecrated to do? And when he does +Fellay has a tantrum and threatens to discontinue association with the order that invited him to do the confirmations.
Please enlighten me. Where is the disobedience??????