Outstanding news!!

Hey France: You have a surplus of Resistance priests, but in America, we have only 1 priest and 1 bishop!

How about sending us a mere 2-3 more priests?

We certainly have the work/numbers/resourcesw/souls to sustain them!

As a distressingly large number of native-English-speaking CI commenters exhibit a crippling inability to understand English words on a page, it should hardly come as a surprise that the odd Frenchie would be similarly handicapped.

If the man in question had written, "What might be implied by Father de Jorna's statement is that the General House … ," accuracy and integrity in thought and interpretation would have been conserved. But that is not what he chose to write. Instead, he took a turn of phrase correctly translated as "it has become my duty to announce" or "my duty obliges me to announce" and presumptuously insisted on univocally interpreting it to mean something not excluded by the language but by no means implicit in it either.

If that Frenchman or anyone here were to be presented with a verse of Scripture where the translator's interpretation of the verse replaced a faithful linguistic transposition, warts and all, of the verse's words themselves—this, of course, is the very methodology underlying most biblical translations of the past sixty years—the air hereabouts would understandably crackle with anathemas.

But why choose integrity when the chance to take a shot at Menzingen presents itself, eh? Surely only a fool would confine his criticism to matters that are demonstrably true!

Given his predilections, the Frenchman who wrote to NonPossumus would be seen by many commenters here as a welcome addition to this website. He, like his putative welcomers, either cannot or will not differentiate what words actually mean from what it suits him to have them mean; or put otherwise, no words reach his brain without first passing through the filter of his preconceptions and opinions.

It's good Fr. P. Rousseau too has left the SSPX (over the Bp. Huonder scandal), and has joined Fr. Morgan.

Incidentally, if anyone here wants to read the excellent French Resistance forum in English, just go to the Non Possumus blog and click on the little British flag (to translate) on the upper part of the page, then scroll down and look on the left side of the page for the list of blogs, and the Francophone Resistance forum is the third one listed.

https://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/

Something to think about from "Joseph" on the French Resistance Forum: http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t945-Fidelite-personnelle-et-instition.htm

"The departure of Father Rousseau leads us to a reflection that I hope is orthodox.

Father Rousseau claims to have left the FSSPX for reasons of conscience. In particular the arrival of a modernist bishop in the walls of a FSSPX school. He rightly believes that it is about bringing the wolf into the sheepfold. It is the same reflection as Sister Marie Elizabeth in England: she saw Bishop Egan's visit to a children's school as a deception of innocent souls. For the sister it was clearly unacceptable in conscience.

These right-wing souls no longer see any other possibility than to leave the FSSPX institution in order not to let the faithful think that these events are to be put into perspective because they do not concern them directly. Father Rousseau says that for him it is a matter of conscience. His departure implies that he could not do otherwise.

Why couldn't Father Rousseau do otherwise? 

Because as a member of the FSSPX, his membership means that he adheres to the general and particular directives of the superior of the congregation. It is not reasonable and normal to stay, to participate in the works of a congregation with which we disagree on the general lines. 

When an institution imposes a dilemma of conscience on the Catholic, the Catholic must follow his conscience to the detriment of the institution. 

Certainly a time of intense reflection, analysis and prayer (with penances in proportion to the evil) is absolutely necessary, but in the end the cut must be made with institutional evil, otherwise God will end up allowing the blindness of those who do not want to apply what his conscience inspires him. God speaks and guides us in holiness through this path.

Some may seek to stifle these torments by denigrating the excessive nature of a departure from the work. Or to drown in the multitude of still good works that the institution offers. And the devil is clever to mutilate harmless works but which will bury the soul in his not choosing to leave the work to save his conscience (his soul).

A Catholic cannot suffer to collaborate in a religious institution that betrays tradition by as little as 1%. Because moral evil can be limited to a single moral principle that has been violated. The whole work is morally soiled by a single task. 

God may want fidelity to his truth to pass through the departure (or non-participation) of the work that was good at the beginning. 

Father Rousseau, by his example, gives us the best proof of this.

Pray that all these priests and faithful torn in conscience by the new principles of the FSSPX will leave this institution. God will help them."

Another Frenchman disagrees with Claudel regarding what is, and what is not, implicit in Fr. de Jorna's announcement of Fr. Rousseau's resignation.  

From CMS on the French Resistance Forum: http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t943-M-l-abbe-Rousseau-quitte-la-FSSPX.htm

"The situation of Fr. de Jorna appears increasingly untenable.

Undoubtedly because of the hesitations and errors of his previous journey, the Superior of the District of France is currently caught in the grip of his contradictions:

- We know of positions very reserved, even hostile, to the rallying of the FSSPX to the so-called "conciliar" Rome: it is he, we recall, who had denounced at the 2012 Chapter the controversial Declaration of Bishop Fellay of 15 April, reproaching this text for promoting "the hermeneutics of continuity" of Pope Benedict XVI.

- We can guess that he is also strongly opposed to the arrival of Bishop Huonder in the Fraternity school in Wangs: as soon as the event was announced in January 2019, La Porte Latine [SSPX French District website], Salvador Lazo's long Profession of Faith of May 21, 1998 was republished in its entirety - without any announced reason or explanatory commentary! - ...an encrypted message towards Menzingen, as we understood it, and the bishop candidate for "retirement" within the walls of Wangs.

- On the other hand, he routinely maintains the image of a manager who is subject to his hierarchy: he has not questioned the jurisdiction accepted from Pope Francis for the sacraments; he is trying to implement the canonical delegation regime for marriages and is travelling through his district to explain and convince his confreres on this difficult subject; he is seeking contacts with the French bishops in order to restore a climate of dialogue (perhaps also to obtain places of worship); and most recently he published without comment the "Joint Communiqué" of May 20 co-signed by Bishop Huonder and Father Pagliarani.

- Most often respectful of the orientations of his Superiors, he displayed from the beginning a complete "ignorance" towards the "Resistance", its bishops, priests and faithful, and he no longer knows the Dominicans of Avrillé.

But the management of Father Dominique Rousseau's case comes at the right time to reveal and highlight the embarrassment, even the confusion, that now paralyses Father de Jorna in the face of an evolution that, it seems, escapes him.

In his circular to his priests, dated 7 May, but published on 7 June (he refers to the "preparation of Pentecost"), he indicates first of all that he has a duty to announce... etc., which means in good French that he does not wish to assume the responsibility of informing the public of his confrere's departure. An admissible point of view, but one wonders what is the point of such a circuмvented formulation, since the choice had already been made to comply with the instructions received from Switzerland?

Under these formalist clarifications, does not Fr. de Jorna in fact hide serious reticence towards his superiors on the substance of the "Huonder" file, reticence of which he sought, in this way, to alert his colleagues?

He then set out the very strong terms used by Father Rousseau to explain his act of rupture: "question of truth", "wolf in the sheepfold", "intolerable" situation, whereas nothing obliged him to select these accusatory traits under the pen of his confrere, nor especially to relay them in his communication to all the priests of the district, thus giving these accusations an echo in the Fraternity that their author would not have dared to expect!

If we reread this circular signed by the Fr. de Jorna, we come to assume that he shares (within himself) the message of protest of Abbot Rousseau....

What then is his "regrets" about this "unexpected departure" worth? Clever meanders of the ecclesiastical spirit?

Could the District Superior not therefore clearly and simply indicate to his hierarchy that he is no longer in sync with the current orientations of the General House, and warn at least the priests under his authority?

His hesitations and moods being more and more disconcerting, it is suggested that he put them in order without delay... by following - why not? - the courageous example of his colleague Rousseau.

"Let your yes be yes, and your no be no"!

In all respects, this would make the debate clearer."