None of that has anything to do with the topic. The founder of the Avrille Dominicans was ordained by ABL, so it’s not like the SSPX didn’t start their group as well.
Okay, let's ask Father Albert some more questions ? :-\
(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qomDmUn5xYA%2FVEr6Q9_oN8I%2FAAAAAAAAKBU%2FArzDwahIC3U%2Fs1600%2FTraditional%252BDominican%252BFriars%252Bof%252BSteffeshausen.jpg&f=1)
1. Why did you hang-out at Silver City & SSPX chapels for years and then go AWOL from your Dominican order?
2. Why did you assist in hijacking novices from the Dominicans of Avrille'?
3. Why did the SSPX's illicit, fake order of Dominicans in Steffeshausen fail?
4. What are you doing suddenly at the Fatima Center?
5. Do you receive an income from the SSPX?
It has everything to do with the topic.I know him personally. He’s with the Society. Again, the SSPX started Avrille so if Avrille is legitimate, then any other group the Society starts is legitimate
Fr. Albert is an AWOL Dominican of Avrille' who had no authority especially from the SSPX, to head a new offshoot Dominican order.
Is he now a freelance vagus? Who is he incardinated to and why?
You're trying to sell him to us.
We every right to know what his business is now.
I know him personally. He’s with the Society. Again, the SSPX started Avrille so if Avrille is legitimate, then any other group the Society starts is legitimate
I know him personally. He’s with the Society. Again, the SSPX started Avrille so if Avrille is legitimate, then any other group the Society starts is legitimate
“Find out about a new traditional religious community, the Dominican Friars of Steffeshausen, Belgium, and see how you can help them… or even join the Third Order of St. Dominic.A video (http://sspx.org/en/media/video/new-dominican-community-third-order-5297) (http://www.dominicansavrille.us/tag/fr-albert/#sdfootnote2sym)has just been posted about a new foundation of traditional Dominican friars in Belgium and the Third Order that they are offering to the faithful.This new community of traditional Dominican friars was founded on November 15, 2013 in Steffeshausen, a little village in the southeast corner of Belgium. They were invited there by the villagers after the death of their parish priest, who had kept the traditional Mass and was persecuted by his bishop some 25 years ago.They offered the church and rectory built by this priest to these friars as a first home for their fledgling community.”
“Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, who assists those religious communities affiliated with the SSPX, accepted to help the foundation as its ecclesiastical superior. You can help the Dominicans by making a donation . . . On their behalf, thank you very much for your support!”
Fr. Albert O.P was recently asked whether one could attend a “reverent” N.O Mass. here’s his response
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpGqNcaPOmg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpGqNcaPOmg)
There are a few things that I would agree with in the video. He's right about the Mass being a sacrifice, which the New Mass doesn't convey. It seems that Fr. Albert does not intend to thoroughly explain the problems with the New Mass, but rather he touches on several the reasons why it's a problem. However, it would have been helpful for him to further explain why it's a big problem that the New Mass is considered to be a "meal." My understanding is that only the priest is required to receive the Body and Precious Blood of Our Lord during Mass. This is required for the Mass to be valid. No one else is required to receive, and that's the main reason why it cannot be considered to be a communal meal. The laity are not required to receive, but of course they can receive if they are in a state of grace with no impediments.Here’s your answer
I also have to wonder what Fr. Albert's views are in relation to the SSPX reconciliation with Rome. Is he fine with the current SSPX trajectory towards a reconciliation with Rome?
A Dominican without bark or bite is no Dominican at all. :)Wellrom his videos it’s clear Fr. Albert doesn’t fall under that label. He’s calm but straightforward
Here’s your answer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11NcXdacM18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11NcXdacM18)
He believes doctrinal questions must be resolved before any agreement is made. Similar to Fr. Gleize
In which case, you would agree that if Avrille poached 5-6 priests from the SSPX, created a new congregation for them, and had them report to Avrille, that would be just fine?If priests from the SSPX decided to leave and join Avrille, I might not agree with their decision but I certainly wouldn’t call it illicit
If priests from the SSPX decided to leave and join Avrille, I might not agree with their decision but I certainly wouldn’t call it illicit
Lip service to doctrine:Yeah, funny. Come back to me after you’ve read what Fr. Gleize writes every month and tell me if he’s accepted doctrinal pluralism. My SSPX priest( a young priest) gave our parish a lecture/conference against the New Mass a few weeks ago. If the Society was going liberal, young priests would not continue to hold to Tradition
The SSPX is already 95% "regularized," and there is no conversion of Rome.
The SSPX has accepted doctrinal pluralism, and Fr. Albert is rolling along with them right into it.
Here’s your answer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11NcXdacM18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11NcXdacM18)
He believes doctrinal questions must be resolved before any agreement is made. Similar to Fr. Gleize
Archbishop Lefebvre would:You’ll have to give me a quote from Lefebvre refusing jurisdiction. Since when does the man who ordains your priests not have jurisdiction over you? Avrille is a religious community, not a religious order. They have no right to claim that thry and they alone are the only real Dominicans on the face of the Earth. The Morgon Capuchins are doctrinally sound and much more balanced.
He refused to claim jurisdiction over the religious communities, saying he had no authority to do so.
+Fellay, +de Galarreta, and Fr. Schmidberger (who all used to agree with that position), no longer believe this, because they want to trap/extort the allied (or once-allied) religious communities into their ralliement to unconverted Rome:
Just one more betrayal of the Founder's principles.
Archbishop Lefebvre would:
He refused to claim jurisdiction over the religious communities, saying he had no authority to do so.
+Fellay, +de Galarreta, and Fr. Schmidberger (who all used to agree with that position), no longer believe this, because they want to trap/extort the allied (or once-allied) religious communities into their ralliement to unconverted Rome:
Just one more betrayal of the Founder's principles.
Yeah, funny. Come back to me after you’ve read what Fr. Gleize writes every month and tell me if he’s accepted doctrinal pluralism. My SSPX priest( a young priest) gave our parish a lecture/conference against the New Mass a few weeks ago. If the Society was going liberal, young priests would not continue to hold to Tradition
Fr. Gleize can say whatever he wants against pluralism, but actions speak louder than words:There has been no deal. Most Novus Ordo priests I’ve spoken to still see the Society as schismatic
A deal with unconverted Rome is the implicit acceptance of docrinal pluralism.
We will all be in legal unity, while believing completely contradictory doctrines (if in fact the SSPX still DOES believe completely contradictory doctrines, which is certainly open to question!).
Faith comes second, if it matters at all.
Bishop Fellay has said himself that the SSPX must learn to accept contradictory opinions on religious liberty, ecuмenism, and collegiality.
You’ll have to give me a quote from Lefebvre refusing jurisdiction. Since when does the man who ordains your priests not have jurisdiction over you? Avrille is a religious community, not a religious order. They have no right to claim that thry and they alone are the only real Dominicans on the face of the Earth. The Morgon Capuchins are doctrinally sound and much more balanced.Here is a quote of +Lefebvre refusing jurisdiction from the CCCC #87:
There has been no deal. Most Novus Ordo priests I’ve spoken to still see the Society as schismatic
The SSPX is 95% "regularized."There’s no harm in talking to someone. Leaving Rome alone will do nothing if we wish to convert them. I guess by your logic I shouldn’t talk to Protestants, Muslims, Jєωs, Atheists, etc because they might corrupt me. No need to evangelize them. When I speak with New Order priests the discussion usually turns into a vigorous argument. I’m not learning from them
What "most Novus Ordo priests" think is irrelavent.
Pretending the SSPX is a threat to perpetuate the illusion of their traditionalism is only to facilitate the sellout (and an artifice to deceive the SSPX faithful: "Oh, the liberals hate us = we are still traditional). But did you notice that practically every conciliar bishop is helping the SSPX into the fold?
Telling, however, that you (a militant SSPXer) admit to speaking with numerous Novus Ordo priests.
Myself, as an old-SSPXer, don't have anything to do with a single one of them.
See the difference?
There’s no harm in talking to someone. Leaving Rome alone will do nothing if we wish to convert them. I guess by your logic I shouldn’t talk to Protestants, Muslims, Jєωs, Atheists, etc because they might corrupt me. No need to evangelize them. When I speak with New Order priests the discussion usually turns into a vigorous argument. I’m not learning from themAs you can see from the effect of the decades-long ralliement on the SSPX, there is PLENTY of harm in "talking with someone."
There’s no harm in talking to someone. Leaving Rome alone will do nothing if we wish to convert them. I guess by your logic I shouldn’t talk to Protestants, Muslims, Jєωs, Atheists, etc because they might corrupt me. No need to evangelize them. When I speak with New Order priests the discussion usually turns into a vigorous argument. I’m not learning from them
I heard Fr Albert has been trying to retire to OLG Silver City but things are caught up in immigration. Heard from Fr Dominic May, who is presently in Missouri, but a native Albertan like bearself.This is true
I heard Fr Albert has been trying to retire to OLG Silver City but things are caught up in immigration.Yes, he wants to return to Silver City to teach at the monastery.
Fr. Albert should settle down from his American wanderings and retire at his old Dominican monastery in France.Dominicans are a preaching order, not bound by a vow of stability/permanence. Some of them are meant to be out traveling and preaching.
The SSPX is 95% "regularized."
https://gloria.tv/post/UQSBkni1bnxe32f4NhJHwXocM
Pope Francis Has Fully Regularized the SSPX - James Bogle
Pope Francis has fully regularized the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), James Bogle, the ex-president of Una Voce International, told Gloria.tv (video below).
Bogle stressed that the SSPX and the sacraments administrated by them, including marriages and confessions, have been formally recognized by Francis. The Society is also allowed to ordain to the priesthood whomever they see fit.
Francis further appointed SSPX Bishop Bernard Fellay as a judge at the Rota Romana, the highest appellate tribunal of the Church, thus recognizing his authority.
"I don't see how much more regular you can get than that," Bogle concludes. He acknowledges, however, that there are a lot of intolerant bishops who still treat the SSPX as if it were irregular.
To them, Bogle answers that those who do not like the integration of the SSPX "better have the argument with Pope Francis."
https://adelantelafe.com/analisis-juridico-del-reconocimiento-de-la-fsspx-en-argentina-un-avance-mas-alla-de-benedicto-xvi/
"Releí las partes pertinentes del Código de Derecho Canónico y estoy más convencido aún que no hay forma de considerar a la FSSPX parte de la Iglesia en Argentina y no en el resto del mundo. Viola toda lógica jurídica."
and...
...Se estaría ante una gravísima situación donde no comulgan con Roma pero sí reciben los beneficios en Argentina por ser “romanos”.
"Es imposible que a esto se llegue sin el acuerdo de Roma y de Econe“.
Only 95%?
In the video on the link provided above, Mr. Bogle says that +Fellay himself told him he was a member of the Roman Rota and that he contacted the Roman Rota to confirm it.
When the SSPX was regularized in Argentina, Adelante la Fe hired an Argentinian lawyer to write a Juridical Analysis of the implications of the SSPX regularization in Argentina. The analysis concluded that it constituted a sort of "back door" entrance into the Church and that it was "impossible", according to Argentinian Law, to be regularized in Argentina and not in the rest of the world. I can only find it in Spanish, please translate. Rorate Caeli published it in English but can't find it now.
Click the link below for the full analysis.
Rorate Caeli would not be endorsing the SSPX and covering their ordinations unless they were fully regularized.
I have noticed some FSSPX priests and/or districts distance themselves from Vatican recently.
Francis terminates Benedict’s Summorum Pontificuм and regularizes the SSPX.
I have noticed some FSSPX priests and/or districts distance themselves from Vatican recently.
This is definitely crystal clear ...
https://youtu.be/xQL-pFxrgFQI have heard sermons by SSPX priests about the absurdity of "hermeneutic of continuity".
I was very pleased last night to see the SSPX finally reject the Hermeneutics of Continuity. I went to bed wondering what took them so long!!! Faithful Catholics had been warning about it since BXVI and specially since Summorum Pontificuм. The answer came this morning from Rorate Caeli.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
This is definitely crystal clear compared to Bishop Williamson's position of "do whatever it takes to save your soul even if it means going to the New Mass"
I have heard sermons by SSPX priests about the absurdity of "hermeneutic of continuity".
Why should they reject the 1962 missal? +Lefebvre accepted that and they are just continuing the usage. Many SSPX priests I spoke to did say the pre-55 is better but 62 is the last acceptable TLM missal widely used. The term transitional is best applied to the 1965 missal, which +Lefebvre did use but ultimately settled for 1962 (until the Nine made a banner out of it to justify their rebellion).
But they (SSPX) have not rejected the (transitional) 1962 missal or Summorum Pontificuм which totally regulates it, not to "liberate it" but to give it its proper burial. If SSPX members cannot see this, they should read the docuмents by BXVI explaining Summorum Pontificuм. To be clear, the purpose of SP is to take merge the "two Forms" into one. In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (yr. 2000), Ratzinger made it clear that 'two rites were difficult to manage, that eventually, they will have to be merged into ONE'. After this is done, the 1962 missal will be abrogated.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html)
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html (https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/docuмents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificuм.html)
https://lms.org.uk/universae-ecclesiae (https://lms.org.uk/universae-ecclesiae)
Why should they reject the 1962 missal? +Lefebvre accepted that and they are just continuing the usage. Many SSPX priests I spoke to did say the pre-55 is better but 62 is the last acceptable TLM missal widely used. The term transitional is best applied to the 1965 missal, which +Lefebvre did use but ultimately settled for 1962 (until the Nine made a banner out of it to justify their rêbêllïon).
http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm
(http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm#_ednref1)
Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, an alleged Mason, directed the liturgical reform from 1948 until 1976. The 1962 Missal, issued at the mid-point of his liturgical tenure, existed only about 2½ years. It was regarded by Bugnini, who took credit for its authorship, as only a transitional Missal toward his ultimate goal of the Novus Ordo. Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificuм said that the relationship of the 1962 Missal to the Novus Ordo is one of organic development, that “They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
This is true statement for Bugnini said in his book, The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948-1976, that the first principles of liturgical reform adopted by his commission, first principles that were novel, artificial ideological constructs, guided his work and remained absolutely consistent throughout his entire tenure. The first principles guiding the formation of the 1962 Missal are the same principles that would give us the Novus Ordo. When Bugnini was asked if the 1962 Missal represented the end of his liturgical innovations he said, “Not by any stretch of the imagination. Every good builder begins by removing the gross accretions, the evident distortions; then with more delicacy and attention he sets out to revise particulars. The latter remains to be achieved for the Liturgy so that the fullness, dignity and harmony may shine forth once again” (The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Fr. Alcuin Reid). Thus such feasts as the Solemnity of St. Joseph, the Chair of St. Peter at Rome, the Finding of the True Cross, St. John before the Latin Gate, and many, many other liturgical changes, considered “gross accretions and evident distortions” by those who would eventually give the Church the liturgical “fullness, dignity and harmony” of the Novus Ordo, were done away with in the 1962 Missal.
It is a fact that the 1962 Missal has never been afforded the standing of Immemorial Tradition by Rome. Every papal docuмent touching upon this Missal treats it entirely as a subject of Church discipline governed entirely by human positive law first under the norms of Ecclesia Dei as an Indult and now under the restrictive legal stipulations of Summorum Pontificuм as a grant of privilege by positive law. At no time in the history of the Church has an immemorial liturgical tradition been reduced to the status of an Indult, which is the permission to do something that is not permitted by the positive law of the Church. This constitutes presumptive proof that Rome does not regard the 1962 Missal as the Immemorial Roman Rite.
The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal was adopted by the SSPX in 1983 as their liturgical standard.