Author Topic: Fr Faure Interview (Read 4811 times)

BrJoseph · « **on:** November 17, 2013, 06:23:21 PM »

The Recusant has arranged to translate the interview with Father Faure posted in june by La Sapiniere - part 1 is posted here:

http://www.therecusant.com/fr-faure

This is an important interview as Father Faure recalls the betrayal at the General Chapter meeting.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2013, 06:47:00 PM »

Apparently, even the Chapter capitulants lost sight of the "big principle" which was supposed to be kept in mind when reading this docuмent?

John Anthony · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2013, 09:18:35 PM »

Fr. Faure says:

"Archbishop Lefebvre helped us to stay separate, to keep our distance, he put us on our guard against the conciliar Church which is no longer Catholic, so he said, and against liberal and modernist Rome which has lost the faith, so he also said."

ABL talked with Rome, signed the May 5 Protocol, and never revoked his signature.

Fr. Faure is just one more of the Society and former Society members who will not face up to the truth: it is +Fellay and not Fr. Faure, or anyone of like mind with Fr. Faure, who is his faithful son.

If you condemn +Fellay on talking out of both sides of his mouth, you must condemn ABL for the same. If you condemn +Fellay for imperilling tradition by talking with modernist Rome, you must condemn ABL for the same.

If you spit on +Fellay, you must spit on ABL.

P.S. Fr. Faure's analogy with the end of French rule in Algeria is almost as scandalous as his caricature of ABL. The decision to end the war in Algeria was a prudential decision. When the French conquered Algeria in the mid 19th century, they had no more right to rule it than they had to rule New Jersey. The Algerians finally rose up in revolt against foreign rule. In order to defend their rule, the French had to sink to the level of barbarity of their foes. De Gaulle simply did what the solid majority of the French wanted; and because of that majority, the ensuing military coup against de Gaulle was a miserable failure. Those who still think that French Algeria was salvageable are as far removed from reality as those who believe that ABL was a Francophone +Williamson.

ultrarigorist · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2013, 10:15:38 PM »

Quote from: John Anthony

Fr. Faure says:

"Archbishop Lefebvre helped us to stay separate, to keep our distance, he put us on our guard against the conciliar Church which is no longer Catholic, so he said, and against liberal and modernist Rome which has lost the faith, so he also said."

ABL talked with Rome, signed the May 5 Protocol, and never revoked his signature.

Fr. Faure is just one more of the Society and former Society members who will not face up to the truth: it is +Fellay and not Fr. Faure, or anyone of like mind with Fr. Faure, who is his faithful son.

If you condemn +Fellay on talking out of both sides of his mouth, you must condemn ABL for the same. If you condemn +Fellay for imperilling tradition by talking with modernist Rome, you must condemn ABL for the same.

If you spit on +Fellay, you must spit on ABL.

P.S. Fr. Faure's analogy with the end of French rule in Algeria is almost as scandalous as his caricature of ABL. The decision to end the war in Algeria was a prudential decision. When the French conquered Algeria in the mid 19th century, they had no more right to rule it than they had to rule New Jersey. The Algerians finally rose up in revolt against foreign rule. In order to defend their rule, the French had to sink to the level of barbarity of their foes. De Gaulle simply did what the solid majority of the French wanted; and because of that majority, the ensuing military coup against de Gaulle was a miserable failure. Those who still think that French Algeria was salvageable are as far removed from reality as those who believe that ABL was a Francophone +Williamson.

"Fr. Faure was one of the first members of the SSPX and is therefore one of its oldest members."
You on the other hand, are a Johnny-come-lately.
By virtue of those facts alone, his words are infinitely more credible than your frothing gall.

John Steven · « **Reply #4 on:** November 17, 2013, 10:33:39 PM »

Quote from: John Anthony

ABL talked with Rome, signed the May 5 Protocol, and never revoked his signature.

What a load of horse manure. You are not intellectuality honest in your arguments.

Do the following quotes sound like ABL never revoked his signature:

• When asked what he thought about Dom Gerard accepting the proposals of the Pope, he said, “At our last meeting, he asked me if I could accept the Protocol [of May 5, 1988] THAT I MYSELF REFUSED!...We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council, we must not have a relationship with them!”(Controverses, No. 0, September 1988, Le Rocher No. 84).

• Regarding the May 5, 1988 Protocol…”If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais p. 555).

• Our true believers—those who understand the problem—feared the steps I took with Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that Rome has to show a little bit of loyalty. One cannot blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, to those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have gone! (Abp. Lefebrve, 1990, Fideliter, No. 79, p. 11).

• “I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548).

• “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (They Have Uncrowned Him, Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).

hollingsworth · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2013, 11:08:23 PM »

John A.:

Quote

ABL talked with Rome, signed the May 5 Protocol, and never revoked his signature.

No doubt, ABL signed the Protocol. And it has never been proven that he revoked his signature.

John A:

Quote

If you condemn +Fellay on talking out of both sides of his mouth, you must condemn ABL for the same. If you condemn +Fellay for imperilling tradition by talking with modernist Rome, you must condemn ABL for the same.

Yes, perhaps. But as John Steven points out with his selected quotes from ABL after the event, the latter's remorse was deep. Bp. Fellay does not seem to exhibit any remorse at all. Does +Fellay ever refer to the AFD as an "infamous agreement?" Do we have a record of any "letter of retraction" from the SG, or any formal statement rejecting the Declaration, much less the subsequently conceived "six conditions," which, BTW, we have no reason to believe are not still in force? Did +Fellay ever say that he went further than (he) should have gone? Has Bp. F. ever declared openly to any chief representative of the Holy See that "we cannot work together. It is impossible! Impossible!" Has +Fellay ever declared to Pope Francis that he is working "to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church?"

I will give John the argument that both ABL and +F sought some kind of accord with Rome. But I think, in the aftermath of these events, separated by twenty five years, and an even worsening situation in the Conciliar church today, Bp. Fellay's effusions of regret and sorrow do not begin to match the Archbishop's. Can anyone argue that the SG does not still leave the door open for a future agreement? I think not.

Wessex · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2013, 05:54:51 AM »

On balance ABL's moments of strength were greater than his moments of weakness. As a result he left the Society fortunately with four independent (then) bishops, not one, something that has got in the way of Menzingen's plans. Had he reconciled with conciliar Rome in 1988, accusations of duplicity would have poured out but the train stayed on track. Fast-forward to 2012, and instead you have a welter of measures against principle. The catalogue includes GREC, Krah, branding, Rothschild, expulsions, V2 acceptance .... and the biggie: doctrinal irrelevance. It is hard to imagine ABL descending to this level of betrayal but these measures define the new Society in its continuing rapprochement with Rome.

Talking about betrayals, opportunist General de Gaulle let down a million French Algerians and so lost another outpost of Christendom. Fr. Faure is right to point out these similarities of European contraction which were a continuation of Soviet/American plans after WW2. As bad as the future of Christian Europe appears, I shudder to think of what will become of the Church in distant places like Rio de Janeiro, Los Angeles and Montreal.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2013, 06:49:32 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

John A.:
Quote
ABL talked with Rome, signed the May 5 Protocol, and never revoked his signature.

No doubt, ABL signed the Protocol. And it has never been proven that he revoked his signature.

Regardless, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four Bishops for the continuation of Catholic Tradition. This is the most important act of his life and hence speaks much where he stood.

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2013, 08:05:40 PM »

John Anthony,

Quote

Fr. Faure is just one more of the Society and former Society members who will not face up to the truth: it is +Fellay and not Fr. Faure, or anyone of like mind with Fr. Faure, who is his faithful son.

If you condemn +Fellay on talking out of both sides of his mouth, you must condemn ABL for the same. If you condemn +Fellay for imperilling tradition by talking with modernist Rome, you must condemn ABL for the same.

Others may address your other characterizations but I will comment upon these two statements only.

The first is simply a fantasy.

The second is the Menzingen tactic of attempting to equate Bishop Fellay's new orientation with that of the Archbishop.

Actions not words and characterizations of events are what constitutes the reality of this situation.
The Archbishop preserved the Society from the Conciliar sect up until his death.
Bishop Fellay was wont to hand it over to be devoured by the same and would have done so if the enemy had not refused his modernist overtura and increased their demands.
Action, actions, one preserved and protected and the other endangered and placed in peril.

JPaul · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2013, 08:08:07 PM »

Quote from: Wessex

On balance ABL's moments of strength were greater than his moments of weakness. As a result he left the Society fortunately with four independent (then) bishops, not one, something that has got in the way of Menzingen's plans. Had he reconciled with conciliar Rome in 1988, accusations of duplicity would have poured out but the train stayed on track. Fast-forward to 2012, and instead you have a welter of measures against principle. The catalogue includes GREC, Krah, branding, Rothschild, expulsions, V2 acceptance .... and the biggie: doctrinal irrelevance. It is hard to imagine ABL descending to this level of betrayal but these measures define the new Society in its continuing rapprochement with Rome.

Talking about betrayals, opportunist General de Gaulle let down a million French Algerians and so lost another outpost of Christendom. Fr. Faure is right to point out these similarities of European contraction which were a continuation of Soviet/American plans after WW2. As bad as the future of Christian Europe appears, I shudder to think of what will become of the Church in distant places like Rio de Janeiro, Los Angeles and Montreal.

As clear an analysis as can be had. Thanks Wes.

B from A · « **Reply #10 on:** November 18, 2013, 09:29:29 PM »

As well as all the other good responses to John A's false comparison above, he's been reminded time and again that there are major differences between the May 5 protocol and F's 2012 doctrinal declaration. Never in a million years would Archbishop Lefebvre have sent a formal docuмent to Rome saying that "the teaching of the Second Vatican Council ... enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated" or that the religious liberty of VII "is reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium", or that the Novus Ordo is "legitimately" promulgated. Not only that, he did not expel priests who warned him not to make a deal with NewRome in 1988. He did not tell priests not to criticize the Pope's scandalous Assisi meeting. He did not pull ordinands off their pre-ordination retreat & refuse to ordain them because he heard rumblings that the superiors of their religious orders did not want him to make a deal. And the dozens of other scandalous examples. Fr. Faure did not just criticize the fact that +F "talked" to modernist Rome, and JA knows it.

For readers who want to understand John Anthony's M.O., see here. (post by Machabees)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** November 19, 2013, 02:37:28 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

On balance ABL's moments of strength were greater than his moments of weakness. As a result he left the Society fortunately with four independent (then) bishops, not one, something that has got in the way of Menzingen's plans. Had he reconciled with conciliar Rome in 1988, accusations of duplicity would have poured out but the train stayed on track. Fast-forward to 2012, and instead you have a welter of measures against principle. The catalogue includes GREC, Krah, branding, Rothschild, expulsions, V2 acceptance .... and the biggie: doctrinal irrelevance. It is hard to imagine ABL descending to this level of betrayal but these measures define the new Society in its continuing rapprochement with Rome.

Talking about betrayals, opportunist General de Gaulle let down a million French Algerians and so lost another outpost of Christendom. Fr. Faure is right to point out these similarities of European contraction which were a continuation of Soviet/American plans after WW2. As bad as the future of Christian Europe appears, I shudder to think of what will become of the Church in distant places like Rio de Janeiro, Los Angeles and Montreal.

Hey! Los Angeles??? What's wrong with Los Angeles??? :argue:

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** November 19, 2013, 02:42:16 AM »

Quote from: B from A

As well as all the other good responses to John A's false comparison above, he's been reminded time and again that there are major differences between the May 5 protocol and F's 2012 doctrinal declaration. Never in a million years would Archbishop Lefebvre have sent a formal docuмent to Rome saying that "the teaching of the Second Vatican Council ... enlightens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated" or that the religious liberty of VII "is reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium", or that the Novus Ordo is "legitimately" promulgated. Not only that, he did not expel priests who warned him not to make a deal with NewRome in 1988. He did not tell priests not to criticize the Pope's scandalous Assisi meeting. He did not pull ordinands off their pre-ordination retreat & refuse to ordain them because he heard rumblings that the superiors of their religious orders did not want him to make a deal. And the dozens of other scandalous examples. Fr. Faure did not just criticize the fact that +F "talked" to modernist Rome, and JA knows it.

For readers who want to understand John Anthony's M.O., see here. (post by Machabees)

You were trying to say: Post by Machabees . . . . :wink:

.

Wessex · « **Reply #13 on:** November 19, 2013, 04:48:10 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Wessex
On balance ABL's moments of strength were greater than his moments of weakness. As a result he left the Society fortunately with four independent (then) bishops, not one, something that has got in the way of Menzingen's plans. Had he reconciled with conciliar Rome in 1988, accusations of duplicity would have poured out but the train stayed on track. Fast-forward to 2012, and instead you have a welter of measures against principle. The catalogue includes GREC, Krah, branding, Rothschild, expulsions, V2 acceptance .... and the biggie: doctrinal irrelevance. It is hard to imagine ABL descending to this level of betrayal but these measures define the new Society in its continuing rapprochement with Rome.

Talking about betrayals, opportunist General de Gaulle let down a million French Algerians and so lost another outpost of Christendom. Fr. Faure is right to point out these similarities of European contraction which were a continuation of Soviet/American plans after WW2. As bad as the future of Christian Europe appears, I shudder to think of what will become of the Church in distant places like Rio de Janeiro, Los Angeles and Montreal.

Hey! Los Angeles??? What's wrong with Los Angeles??? :argue:

.

You are best placed to know how far the City of Angels has fallen, my friend! I was seeking out places where the deleterious effects of the Council were to show up dramatically. And in time to assess how far the new climate has returned to haunt Rome in the form of Bergoglio and the desire to elevate 'third world' cardinals and move towards a non-European church and conjecture that Ratzinger, as bad as he was, msy have been the last gasp of 'old world' hegemony.

Sienna629 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2013, 09:42:53 AM »

Quote from: John Anthony

If you spit on +Fellay, you must spit on ABL.

Is "John Anthony" the former "John MCFARLAND" ?