Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Fr. Brendan King on Sr. Mary-Elizabeth's Departure from the SSPX Oblates  (Read 4335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 613
  • Reputation: +609/-55
  • Gender: Male
http://op54rosary.ning.com/forum/topics/fr-kiung-s-response-to-actions-of-mother-superior-of-uk-leaving

My Dear Friends,

“But though we or an Angel from Heaven preach to you a Gospel besides
that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

Is not the above text from the Epistle of St Paul to the Galatians in perfect harmony with the
history of the Church since Vatican II which has caused an unprecedented crisis of Faith and has
shaken the Catholic Church to her foundations ? The opinion of our founder Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre was that the Council was in contradiction with Catholic Tradition and represented a
rupture with Tradition, that is in particular the teachings of the Council of Trent and of Popes
Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII. He wrote several books and articles exposing the
errors of the Council and most notably. ‘I Accuse The Council’. Pope Paul VI, the Pope of Vatican
II, himself admitted shortly after the Council that “the smoke of Satan had entered the Church”
and that we were witnessing the “auto-demolition of the Church.” Paul VI was a liberal Pope
who, although he acknowledged the disastrous state of the Church after the Council, refused to
admit that Vatican II was the cause of the disaster and chaos. It is a historical fact that Paul VI
and his successors persecuted Archbishop Lefebvre and his priestly Society precisely because he
was exposing and denouncing the errors of the Council and using every means (letters,
meetings, sermons, conferences etc.) to convince the modernist Roman Authorities to abandon
the Council, condemn its poisonous fruits and return to authentic Catholic Tradition. Surely it is
not an exaggeration to apply the words of St. Paul quoted above to the Council which has in
word and deed preached to the Catholic Faithful and the world a Gospel different from the one
which has been preached for two thousand years !


And what is that Gospel ? It is quite simply that the Catholic Church has to move with the times
and find a ‘modus vivendi’ with the world and modern man. Archbishop Lefebvre described the
Council as World War III in the Church and the principles of the French Revolution (Liberty,
Equality, Fraternity) gaining influence and control of the life of the Church. It is the spirit of
compromise whereby the Church seeks common ground with the world, a spirit and practical
relationship with persons and organisations outside Catholic Unity which is completely alien and
anathema to the Catholic Faith. Christ said to His Apostles (and all their successors) “Go and
teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost;” He did not say, go and preach ecuмenism and religious liberty and organise a religion
centred on man and adapt My Truth to what people are prepared to accept. Christs words are
clear and unequivocal – “Unless you believe you shall be condemned” “I am the Way, the Truth
and the Life” and no-one comes to the Father except through me.”


As we all know and are bearing witness to, the successors of our dear Archbishop have
abandoned the principles he passed on to his priestly society and seen fit to work towards a
practical agreement with modernist Rome without their conversion to Catholic Tradition. They
no longer see, or refuse to see, that the crisis of Faith is much worse now than ever and are also
happy to compromise and find a ‘modus vivendi’ with the post conciliar Church and its
representatives. This is why we have seen recently the Bishop of Portsmouth make an official
visit to St Michael’s School, lead the children in prayer and receive a spiritual bouquet as a token
of gratitude ! The Bishop was invited by the Priests of the school with the approval of the
highest authorities in the Society of St. Pius X. This is an absolute scandal to all Catholics who
see clearly that Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in his understanding of the crisis in the Church
and how to combat and resist it and in God’s good time, overcome it. “Overcome evil by good –
that is the evil and bad fruits of the Council with the good of Tradition and sound doctrine.


I would like to quote from the statement I made in May 2015 (to further clarify the Bishop’s visit
to the school) when I met the then 2 nd Assistant to Bishop Fellay Father Nely. “Just to go back
to June 2012. I was at Econe for my Priestly Jubilee and the atmosphere was tense to say the
least. I wanted to speak to Fr. Nely who as the second assistant was one of Bishop Fellays close
advisors. He agreed to receive me and I expressed my concerns about a purely practical
agreement with Rome without their genuine conversion to Tradition. I then put to him the
question: was it no longer possible for the Society to hold to the position laid out by the
Archbishop, which is the MIDDLE COURSE (that is neither modernist and liberal on the one hand,
nor sedevacantist on the other) ? He did not answer the question directly, but said that a whole
generation of Catholics are growing up not knowing what it is to be in a normal relationship with
Rome. That is not normal he said and if we don’t do something about our Canonical situation
then we will become schismatic or sedevacantist. It was a very interesting revelation of what
thinking lay behind this new strategy of negotiation with Rome on the part of Menzingen. It said
it all in fact. The problem was not with modernist Rome but with the Society which was in an
abnormal situation !”


Therefore, the visit of the Bishop of Portsmouth to St. Michaels School on 8 th March is putting
into effect perfectly the long term strategy of the New Society explained by Fr. Nely in 2012. We
can virtually say that it is ‘consummated’ as the Priests refer to the Bishop as their local Bishop,
that is as the ecclesiastical authority who grants jurisdiction and that has certainly now been
granted for marriages. The Bishop of Portsmouth is modernist and was the representative of the
modernist and post conciliar authorities responsible for destroying the Church . Afterall, he says
the New Mass, gives Communion in the hand, preaches ecuмenism and believes in Religious
Liberty. Since the Society no longer believes that there is a serious crisis in the Church, they no
longer think in terms of the principal of ‘Supplied Jurisdiction’ (which the Society relied on
under the Archbishop) because we had no confidence in the modernist authorities and
hierarchy. St. Michael’s School is a Society of St Pius X school in name only and by inviting the
local Bishop, the Priests of the school have more in common with the Fraternity of St. Peter than
they have with Archbishop Lefebvre and his faithful sons and children and the Archbishop was
without any doubt a true son of the Church and in full communion with it.


The Sisters who departed from St. Michaels School over a week ago, had no choice but to leave
and in doing so they have our full support and admiration. May Jesus and Mary protect them
and bless them and may the Priests of the District and sons and heirs of the Archbishop, pray for
the courage and strength to do likewise and with the freedom and liberty of the children of God,
fight the good fight without compromise or restraint.


Father Brendan King


Offline X

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 613
  • Reputation: +609/-55
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To send donations to the Sisters:

    Donations can be sent via PayPal using this email address:


      srmelisabeth@outlook.com


    ..or directly to the following bank account:

      Account holder - C. Bastin
        Sort Code - 30-95-89
        Account number - 56210860


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The following introductory comment (coming from the lady who posted Fr. King’s words, and not from Fr. King) was omitted from the OP:

    “Father Brendan King is a Catholic Priest ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1987 at Econe, Switzerland. No longer able in conscience to support The Society of Saint Pius X’s betrayal of the Traditional cause and Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy, he strives as an independent Priest and with the grace of God, to be faithful to Tradition without compromise to Liberalism or Modernism, in the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre.”

    In other words, she wants to make it clear that Fr. King is not in any way affiliated with Bishop Williamson (ie., Fr. King’s chapel is situated near the Scottish border, and apparently the Scotch faithful do not like Bishop Williamson, for more or less the same reasons as Fr. Pfeiffer, and have been pressuring Fr. King along those lines.  Consequently, there has been little to no collaboration between the two for a few years).

    I have no idea on whether Sr. Mary-Elizabeth shares that opposition, but I do know she contacted Bishop Williamson.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31201
    • Reputation: +27119/-495
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just a quick note in relation to the post on Fr King. 

    Fr King is indeed 'independent' as opposed to being a 'Resistance' Priest per se. He is not under the authority of Bp. Williamson so far as I am aware. However, there is no animosity towards Bp Williamson as far as Fr Kings faithful go. Just last year, I was present at a round of confirmations of Fr's faithful at the hands of Bp Williamson. There was also a conference that same weekend where in roughly 60 of said faithful were in attendance. This all took place in Liverpool which is less than an hours drive from where Sr Mary Elizabeth currently resides in Southport. Further to this, many of Fr Kings faithful have also made the effort to travel down to London on more than one occasion to attend lectures given by His Lordship. Several others have also visited his residence in Broadstairs. Not to mention a healthy number of them also attending the Fatima pilgrimage for the centenary, which was led by Bp. Williamson. I was also present for this. 

    Bar one family that I'm aware of, I do not believe any of Fr King's faithful are associated with Fr Pfeiffer.

    Resistance supporters in Southern England (primarily London and Kent) are on very friendly terms with Fr Kings faithful across the various Northern locations he covers. 

    I'd appreciate if this clarification could be posted.

    God bless, 
    (Name withheld)
    Regular attendee of the Resistance Mass Centre in London
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just a quick note in relation to the post on Fr King.

    Fr King is indeed 'independent' as opposed to being a 'Resistance' Priest per se. He is not under the authority of Bp. Williamson so far as I am aware. However, there is no animosity towards Bp Williamson as far as Fr Kings faithful go. Just last year, I was present at a round of confirmations of Fr's faithful at the hands of Bp Williamson. There was also a conference that same weekend where in roughly 60 of said faithful were in attendance. This all took place in Liverpool which is less than an hours drive from where Sr Mary Elizabeth currently resides in Southport. Further to this, many of Fr Kings faithful have also made the effort to travel down to London on more than one occasion to attend lectures given by His Lordship. Several others have also visited his residence in Broadstairs. Not to mention a healthy number of them also attending the Fatima pilgrimage for the centenary, which was led by Bp. Williamson. I was also present for this.

    Bar one family that I'm aware of, I do not believe any of Fr King's faithful are associated with Fr Pfeiffer.

    Resistance supporters in Southern England (primarily London and Kent) are on very friendly terms with Fr Kings faithful across the various Northern locations he covers.

    I'd appreciate if this clarification could be posted.

    God bless,
    (Name withheld)
    Regular attendee of the Resistance Mass Centre in London

    Clarification on the clarification:

    1) The contention that there is no animosity between some of Fr. King’s Scotch families and Bishop Williamson is contradicted by the information given to me by one of the four resistance bishops.  

    If it is incorrect, it is because the bishop has given me incorrect information.

    2) The same bishop informs me that, although it is true that Bishop Williamson performed confirmations for Fr. King’s Scotch faithful, apparently this had to be done at a neutral off-site location because of the protests coming from some Scotch families (I do not know whether this particular round of confirmations was the one referred to above, or one from prior years);

    3) The above post does not specify whether the faithful being referred to are the Scotch faithful I referenced, or some others; clarification would be helpful;

    4) I made no reference to anyone supporting Fr. Pfeiffer, but rather, to Scotch families being opposed to collaborating with Bishop Williamson for the same reasons more or less advanced by Fr. Pfeiffer.

    5) Neither did I suggest that the faithful of southern England were not on good terms with those of Fr. King.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31201
    • Reputation: +27119/-495
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I know one family who no longer attends any Resistance chapel because one of the spouse's parents had a falling out with Bishop Williamson. I bring it up here, because Scotland was involved.

    It might not be a pattern; the particular case I know of (second hand) was very much a PERSONAL issue.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2790
    • Reputation: +2894/-513
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


  • Quote
    No longer able in conscience to support The Society of Saint Pius X’s betrayal of the Traditional cause and Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy, he (Fr. King) strives as an independent Priest and with the grace of God, to be faithful to Tradition without compromise to Liberalism or Modernism, in the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre.”


     
    Doesn’t Fr. King’s position more or less correspond to the wishes of Bp. Williamson, as he expressed them earlier? +W seemed to be advocating for a loose federation of independent priests, who made use of the bishops’ offices from time to time, but were in no way part of any new so-called “resistance” organization, modeled after the old sspx structure.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  •  
    Doesn’t Fr. King’s position more or less correspond to the wishes of Bp. Williamson, as he expressed them earlier? +W seemed to be advocating for a loose federation of independent priests, who made use of the bishops’ offices from time to time, but were in no way part of any new so-called “resistance” organization, modeled after the old sspx structure.

    Certainly, but that is not the disputed issue here.

    The issue is not regarding the relationship between Fr. King and Bishop Williamson (which nobody should be questioning), but whether there is a contingent of Scotch faithful averse to his collaborating with the bishop.
    On that score, inside sources are giving contradictory information.


    Offline Sienna629

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 345
    • Reputation: +363/-5
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!1
  • In his wisdom, I think H.E. Bishop Williamson clearly understands that we are past the time for establishing another Society like the SSPX of 1970. All of the Devil's advocates are free to zero in on any attempt to duplicate the Society and would infiltrate the organization before the ink had dried. People want to re-create 1970 but those days are gone forever. We are in the very late stages of the game and a loose federation is the best we can hope for. 

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31201
    • Reputation: +27119/-495
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • In his wisdom, I think H.E. Bishop Williamson clearly understands that we are past the time for establishing another Society like the SSPX of 1970. All of the Devil's advocates are free to zero in on any attempt to duplicate the Society and would infiltrate the organization before the ink had dried. People want to re-create 1970 but those days are gone forever. We are in the very late stages of the game and a loose federation is the best we can hope for.

    This is also why it is problematic or impossible to compare +Williamson to +ABL.
    They are both sharp, educated, devout, fierce loyal defenders of the Faith -- but that's where the similarities end.
    Are the 1970's equal to the 2010's? In virtually every category, the answer is a resounding "no".

    History doesn't repeat itself, but it does often rhyme.

    I'd love to see an advanced computer simulation of the world and human behavior, where I could plug in +ABL into the Church situation today. It would be eye-opening I'm sure.

    Just for starters -- you could be Catholic, holy, prudent, etc. -- but wouldn't your "results" be less stellar if the Trad world has had decades to mature, fragment, produce X clerical personalities, each breaking off a group into a new theory and cementing various distinctions? In the 1970's there were no Dimond brothers, no SSPV, no Dolan/Cekada, no "Una cuм" debate, no Ecclesia Dei, no Indult of any kind, no ICK, no FSSP. If you didn't like the Novus Ordo, you were Trad. And so many Trads heard the proverbial "voice of the Shepherd" when they heard +ABL speak. 

    What if the same +ABL appeared today, saying the same words with the same message? I would bet my life savings that the results wouldn't be the same. It's a different world today.

    Just like the Internet was a different place in 1995. The phrase "wild west" comes to mind. I remember a website around 1999-2000 called "What's Hot Now" that let you vote on things, and get reward points. Those points could be redeemed for free stuff, including free shipping. I got many $8 packs of imported Japanese language Pokemon cards (yes, I was an adult at the time -- I was in it for the Japanese) with free shipping, just by clicking a bunch of stuff on a webpage. Can you IMAGINE something like that today? It just wouldn't happen. You had all kinds of craziness during the heady days of the Dot-Com bubble before 2000.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 31201
    • Reputation: +27119/-495
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Just got an e-mail from the same person:

    Quote
    The round of confirmations I refer to took place in Liverpool, and no Scots were present. I believe Fr King would occasionally visit a family in Scotland but I've heard they have now adopted the Non-Una cuм position and the association has ended. There are monthly Sedevacantist Masses in Scotland celebrated by visiting Priests associated with the CMRI. It's been a while since a Recusant has come out, but Priests who at least several months ago were associated with Fr Pfeiffer, would also visit Scotland as frequently detailed in the Recusant. 

    The only reason I say all of this is because several of us here noted that X's post, suggested a lack of unity amongst UK Resistance faithful which is not the case at all. 
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In his wisdom, I think H.E. Bishop Williamson clearly understands that we are past the time for establishing another Society like the SSPX of 1970. All of the Devil's advocates are free to zero in on any attempt to duplicate the Society and would infiltrate the organization before the ink had dried. People want to re-create 1970 but those days are gone forever. We are in the very late stages of the game and a loose federation is the best we can hope for.

    This is indeed what Bishop Williamson would have you believe, however, with respect to His Excellency (whom I esteem), I think his fatalism is getting the better of his doctrine:

    1) A loose confederation (ie., egalitarianism) is manifestly contrary to the hierarchical constitution of the Catholic Church;

    2) Without hierarchy, Bishop Williamson will end up creating the very chaos he diagnoses as the reason to forego authority;

    3) It also seems that those who advocate against the Catholic model for the apostolate on the basis that “circuмstances have changed and we can’t be 1970’ers anymore” are making exactly the same rationale and argument they reject in Fr. Simoulin’s “we can’t be ‘88ers anymore:”

    The traditional apostolate is no longer viable; we must change.

    4) They are therefore every bit as guilty for killing off the work of Archbishop Lefebvre as the neo-SSPX, even if the method of execution is different (one slides into conciliar modernism, while the other fractures and dissolved into ever greater factions, until both guzzle out completely).

    5) And it seems not to occur to advocates of ecclesiastical democracy (same as the collegiality they oppose in the conciliar church) that the alleged “wisdom” of this novel “organization” of the apostolate, and the rationale for it (no longer feasible; authority shot; modern man too damaged; etc) is daily contradicted by the example of Avrille, Santa Cruz, the SAJM, the MCSPX, tge Carmelites of Ireland, the sisters of France, etc, etc.

    6) The implicit suggestion is that were Archbishop Lefebvre alive, he would need to disband the SSPX!

    7) As for the analogy to the schema prophecied by Fr. Calmel and Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson in “Lord of the World,” I can only say that with regard to the latter, there was still strict hierarchy and authority even in the Church of the end times, reduced to a half dozen priests and Pope.  

    And as regards Fr. Calmel, it is one thing to take the loose confederation posture when forced into it by bloody persecution (ie, unwillingly and reluctantly), but quite another to voluntarily reorganize upon such a patently uncatholic model!

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2790
    • Reputation: +2894/-513
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • X:
    Quote
    This is indeed what Bishop Williamson would have you believe, however, with respect to His Excellency (whom I esteem), I think his fatalism is getting the better of his doctrine:
     
    1) A loose confederation (ie., egalitarianism) is manifestly contrary to the hierarchical constitution of the Catholic Church;

    Well then, it appears that X (whose identity is a closely guarded secret, for whatever reason), is in basic disagreement with +W's original proposal in the wake of the latter's separation from the Society.  Because the bishop was pretty clear that the old sspx model would not work any longer. X defers to some idea, (his idea), that the Chruch's "hierarchical constitution" forecloses the possibility of implementing H.E.'s altered (organizational?) approach going forward. His "fatalism" apparently hinders H.E.'s correct doctrinal understanding.
    I still want to know who X is.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +609/-55
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • X:
    Well then, it appears that X (whose identity is a closely guarded secret, for whatever reason), is in basic disagreement with +W's original proposal in the wake of the latter's separation from the Society.  Because the bishop was pretty clear that the old sspx model would not work any longer. X defers to some idea, (his idea), that the Chruch's "hierarchical constitution" forecloses the possibility of implementing H.E.'s altered (organizational?) approach going forward. His "fatalism" apparently hinders H.E.'s correct doctrinal understanding.
    I still want to know who X is.

    Dear Mr. Hollingsworth-

    You are correct that I am in disagreement with His Excellency on these points.

    But you are wrong to suggest that I would supplant His Excellency’s novel idea with one of my own:

    It was Christ Himself who, from the first announcement in sacred Scripture that He would institute a Church to guide men until He should come again, declared His Church to be constituted upon a divine authority:

    “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church...”

    This is not only the constituting of the Church upon authority and hierarchy, but one of the supports for indefectability, such that to deny authority and hierarchy are no longer tenable is to unwittingly militate against that dogma as well.

    But as His Excellency once told me, “Jesus and Mary once walked the earth, but since then...”

    Meaning, nobody is perfect.

    I support His Excellency in 100 other ways, but I didn’t want to sin by omission when I saw Sienna’s post above.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 6) The implicit suggestion is that were Archbishop Lefebvre alive, he would need to disband the SSPX!

    I don't see that the above statement has been implicitly suggested.

    If +ABL were alive today, there wouldn't likely be such great problems in the SSPX, and as such there would not be a need for a Resistance.
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29