Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on May 13, 2013, 09:08:19 PM
-
Open answer to the Open Letter of Bishop Williamson to the members of the SSPX
Singapore, May 12, 2013
Most Reverend and dear Bishop Williamson,
I hear the basic accusation: “the present leadership of the Society of St Pius X means to lead it away from the direction set for it by Archbishop Lefebvre, and towards the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council.” “Superiors meaning to lead them and yourselves towards, even into, the great apostasy of modern times.”
This is a very grievous accusation, that requires facts proportionate to prove it. But what do we get afterwards? An analysis of Bishop Fellay’s declaration of April 15, 2012 follows. From the very first paragraph one finds an evil twist. Indeed, Bishop Fellay wrote, as the first paragraph of his declaration: “We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter and head of the body of Bishops.” These words of bishop Fellay were almost an exact quote of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words: “I, Marcel Lefebvre, promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops” (May 5, 1988). Now who would not see in such promise a clear, unambiguous profession of Catholic Faith and fidelity to the Catholic Church? It seems hard to find something evil in this. Yet you do, writing that it “can easily be misdirected today towards the Conciliar Church as such, and to the Conciliar Pontiffs.” Your very comment destroys its own self; indeed you use the words “as such”, which means that you want to take words in their precise meaning. Just apply those words, “as such”, to Bishop Fellay’s original sentence and they refute your own comment: “We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church as such and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ as such, successor of Peter as such and head of the body of Bishops.” Thus to find evil even in this first sentence of Bishop Fellay manifests that “ill-disposition” of which St Thomas speaks in IIa IIae qu. 60 a.3: “this [interpreting doubts in the evil side] is due to a man being ill-disposed towards another: for when a man hates or despises another, or is angry with or envious of him, he is led by slight indications to think evil of him, because everyone easily believes what he desires.” The analysis continues in the same vein, and it is superfluous to go through each paragraph. Though that April 15th declaration is not without need of some corrections – which Bishop Fellay himself acknowledged – yet it is far from the original accusation that you try to prove. No, it is NOT true that “whoever studies these ten paragraphs in the original text can only conclude that their author or authors have given up the Archbishop’s fight for Tradition, and have gone over in their minds to Vatican II.” At most one may say that this text is weak and contains some inappropriate words (ambiguous, inexact, inappropriate, or simply wrong, like the 7th paragraph) in an effort to find a doctrinal declaration acceptable to the present members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is not true to say that the SSPX Headquarters has not retracted it (your French KE 303, but not in the English version: which one is the original?) Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012 that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work.
2
The same accusations are sometimes made against the Protocol of May 5, 1988, which had been prepared by the future Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and signed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Would you accuse these two the way you accused Bishop Fellay? Certainly not! If that declaration of April 15th had really “given up Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight for Tradition”, the modernists – who are no fools – would have rejoiced and accepted it! No matter how weak one reckons it, it remained too strong for the CDF and was unacceptable for them; it was therefore far from “giv[ing] up the Archbishop’s fight for Tradition.” By the way, any honest reader of Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter of May 6, 1988 [see my book Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican] would not agree with your writing: “It is well known that on May 6 he repudiated that Protocol because he himself recognized that it made too many concessions for the Society to be able to continue defending Tradition.” In that letter, Archbishop Lefebvre warmly thanked Cardinal Ratzinger for that Protocol, and far from disapproving it, he basically asked for a prompt implementation of it, requesting a proximate date for the approved Consecration (the only way in which he departed from the protocol is in the threat that, if no date were given to him, he would go ahead: he explained himself about that saying that such threat had been the only way to go forward in those negotiations). It is only after he received the response for it, with its requests for other candidates which made the given date of August 15th impossible to keep since there was not enough time to process the dossiers for those additional candidates, that faced with such a recurrent postponing game (June 30th was the fourth date, Archbishop Lefebvre having already postponed three times), he decided to go ahead on June 30th. Cardinal Ratzinger was visibly conscious that Rome had not treated Archbishop Lefebvre fairly in that matter, and thus wanted to correct it during his pontificate. You conclude at the end: “the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.” Given the disproportion of such conclusion – and of the above accusations – with the actual words of Bishop Fellay’s declaration (and with all the other accusations in the past 18th months, typically in the Open Letter to Bishop Fellay by supposedly 37 priests in France), when I try to understand the reasoning behind, it seems to me that the basic accusation is this one which you state: “The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there.” And the reasoning seems to be this one: the occupiers of the See of Peter and Roman Congregations are “the apostates of Rome”, men wholly dedicated to “the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council,” which is “the great apostasy of modern times”; any agreement whatsoever with them, any canonical recognition by them, makes one a collaborator in that great apostasy of modern time, a liberal, great enemy of God.
Now in all honesty, such reasoning was NEVER the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre! Indeed on March 22nd 1980, he was saying (Homec 20A1): “This is the reason why today particularly I insist on this unity among us. True, such unity is easier to keep for religious families in monasteries. For us who are very much spread out by the very nature of our priestly fraternity, unity may seem sometimes more difficult. Well, if it is more difficult, precisely it requires that we have stronger bonds, more solid, more resolute, in order to be well united with one another and work for the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in this religious family which is – once more – united with the Church of all times. And united with the Church of today, and even united, I would say, to her leaders who, if they are influenced with modern ideas to which we cannot adhere, if they are influenced with the ideas of this new right, as said Leo XIII, right that has been condemned by Leo XIII and all his predecessors, and if in this sense we do not feel united in thought with those with whom we should be in full communion of thought, it does not matter. This does not break this unity, because through their persons who should be fully submitted to Tradition, fully subject to what their predecessors have taught, we are united through them to this apostolicity which comes down through all the sovereign pontiffs to the present Sovereign Pontiff today reigning. In this we must be persuaded, convinced, that we are precisely, intimately, more than anyone, members of the Holy Church and with all the members of
3
the Church we fight for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ; even if some of them, unfortunately, by their conduct, their thinking, their writing, their acting, do not favour the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is indeed what happened throughout the history of the Church.” Does recognizing Pope Francis as the legitimate pope makes one a modernist? By doing so, we simply recognize the fact of his legitimacy as supreme pontiff, as the Archbishop said above. That part in him is still Catholic. And if that Catholic part does recognize us, it will neither make us modernists. Moreover, such reasoning manifests “to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.” Thus you fall in the very default that you accuse others. Indeed, Catholic Truth is not something you can take in part: either you believe the whole Faith or you have lost the whole Faith. Now one essential article of the Catholic Faith is precisely the faith in the Catholic Church, and especially the “faith in Peter” as Archbishop Lefebvre said on the very day of your own ordination, June 26, 1976: “O yes, we have Faith in Peter; we have faith in the successor of Peter!” And he said in another occasion: “If any one breaks with Rome, it will not be me.” From the beginning of the Society, he was careful to obtain the approval of Bishop Charrière and even shortly after Assisi he was still willing to postpone the Consecration in order to do it with the approval of the Pope and within a proper canonical structure. It is only in front the lack of good faith of those in authority at Rome that he went ahead without waiting for them. Catholic Faith teaches us that we cannot be saved alone, separated from the Church. Faith alone is not sufficient; without Charity, that “bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14) which binds us with Christ and with each member of Christ, it is impossible to go to Heaven. “And if I should have … all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, … and have not charity, I am nothing… it profiteth me nothing” (I Cor 13:2-3). If this internal bond with the Church, consisting in sanctifying grace and charity, is absolutely necessary for salvation, the external bond of the Church, consisting, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, in the profession of the Catholic Faith, the practice of Catholic worship (starting with the sacrament of Baptism) AND the hierarchical communion is also necessary for salvation, “re aut voto”; that is, in case without fault on one’s part one of these external aspect is not possible in fact, then at least the “votum – the firm desire and will” of it is necessary for salvation. Thus the Catholic Church teaches that the very desire of a proper canonical situation (in which basically the hierarchical communion consists) is necessary. Read St. Robert (quoted in Is Feeneyism Catholic? p. 40): he clearly says that if such hierarchical recognition is unjustly denied, the lack of it may not be an obstacle to salvation; but if it is not even desired, then that very lack of desire for hierarchical communion is an obstacle to salvation. You might say: yes, I want proper hierarchical communion, but with proper Catholic authorities, not with those presently occupying Rome. My answer is: this is basically the sedevacantist position, and was NEVER Archbishop Lefebvre’s position, nor is it in conformity with reality: it is not true. In some of your writings (Various Churches) you present the situation as if they are in the Conciliar Church and not in the Catholic Church, presenting the Catholic Church as only that part of the visible Church which would have remained sound. Here are your words: That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.
Now such thinking was NEVER the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre. (See my own text on Various Churches?) He never considered the Catholic Church as merely a part of the whole visible Church, a part whose boundaries would no longer be clearly visible, a part where there would no longer be a proper hierarchy, since as you wrote in that same text: “the ‘official Church’ is largely Conciliar and not Catholic.” The error of reasoning in that text is to confuse the being/essence and its properties/marks: from the fact that the four Marks of the Church are less visible in many areas due to the errors of the Council, especially the scandalous ecuмenism, one cannot conclude that they are “not Catholic”. In a famous sermon, on 29th June 1982 (Bishop Fellay’s ordination, and mine), Archbishop Lefebvre beautifully exposed the trial this present crisis is giving to the faith of some; he explained that the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ was a challenge to the Faith of some in the beginning of the Church, and there were some heretics who refused to recognise the true humanity of Christ saying that God
4
could not have suffered so much, and thus they devised that He only had an apparent body; and there were other heretics who refused to recognise the Divinity of Him who suffered so much. In a similar way the present Passion of the Church, Mystical Body of Christ, is a challenge to the faith of some, and there are some who refuse to recognise the errors and evils going on in the Church, saying that Christ could not let so much evil in the Church, and there are others who refuse to recognise that those officials who strayed so far from their duty may still be a part of the Mystical Body of Christ and they became sedevacantists. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected both errors, and explained that, as no one could have said beforehand how far could physical evil (suffering) go in the physical Body of Christ, so no one could say beforehand how far could spiritual evil (error and sin) go in the Mystical Body of Christ; it is a mystery that the Son of God could say in His sufferings: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46); yet one ought to remain faithful like Our Lady at the foot of the Cross. So it is a mystery to see that the successor of Peter could invite all religions together to pray at Assisi like John Paul II did: to pray to which God? Yet contra factum non fit argumentum, as you rightly reminded us often. Yet even after that Assisi scandalous meeting, Archbishop Lefebvre was working with Cardinal Gagnon to establish a proper canonical situation for the SSPX. Catholic Truth is that, in spite of all the imperfection and some deep sins of the successors of the Apostles, some saints, some reprobates and Judases, we must be in communion with them, because they are the successors of the Apostles. Then you might say: Yes, we recognise the Pope, but we ought to keep our distances, since “it is Superiors who mould their subjects and not the other way around.” Here the great principle of St. Augustine is there to calm your fears: “in the Church, communion with the wicked does not harm the just, so long as they do not consent with their wicked deeds.” Such fear must not make us reject that which is in itself good (hierarchical communion, ORDER within the Church), the right positioning of ourselves towards the possession of the authority that comes from Christ. Only when faced with the abusive exercise of that authority we should resist. What we ought to do – and this is what Bishop Fellay has been keen to do from the beginning of the offers of Rome, i.e. from the year 2000 – is to exercise the virtue of prudence and provide for the protection and guarantees for the continuation of the work of Tradition. When Bishop Fellay exposed in last year’s spring Cor Unum the principles that were directing his exercise of this prudence, he wrote: “Our principled position: the faith first and foremost: we intend to remain Catholic and, to that end, to preserve the Catholic faith first of all.” Then he exposed that “two points were absolutely necessary in order to assure our survival: The first is that no concessions affecting the faith and what follows from it (liturgy, sacraments, morality, discipline) may be demanded of the Society. The second is that a real liberty and autonomy of action should be granted to the Society, and that these freedoms should allow it to live and develop in concrete circuмstances.” How honestly can you write after that he is leading us “away from the direction set for it by Archbishop Lefebvre, and towards the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council… towards, even into, the great apostasy of modern times” and that he has “lost [his] grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth”? You may say that he had some imprudent and weak words, but you may not draw those outrageous conclusions of yours! They are so far from the whole reality, i.e. all that Bishop Fellay has said and not just a part, that one cannot but wonder whether it is not rather you who has lost his grip on truth. You warn us of “the danger in which your Superiors are placing their faith and therewith their eternal salvation.” Dear Monseigneur, there are priests who have been following you and have grievously fallen in scandalously schismatic declarations. Father Chazal gives a resoundingly schismatic “No!” to the question: “What we have is a complete entanglement of Truth and error, still good people having the Faith and rotten members. In case of such entanglement, as for the wheat and the chaff, what do we do? Do we go on the field? No!” If he is not in the field of Our Lord, he will not be gathered in the barn of Our Lord; he cannot be gathered in the barn of Our Lord if he is not in the field of Our Lord. Such “No!” is a refusal of the Church in concreto; it is really a schismatic No. Though in your loose association there is not real authority – a very liberal association indeed – yet, you have a certain moral leadership over them, and thus ought to correct him, for his own salvation. Unless he returns in the field, he will not be saved.
5
Protestants rejected the Church for the scandals of the renaissance Popes and bishops. We must not follow their example! Archbishop Lefebvre was really a “man of the Church”, a man whose whole life was in the service of the Church, a man faithful to the Church. It seems to me that this word, fidelity, can summarise the whole life and fight of Archbishop Lefebvre: he was faithful to the Faith, faithful to the Liturgy, faithful to the morals, faithful to the Church! That fidelity is very simply expressed in the words he asked to be put on his tomb: “I have delivered to you that which I have received.” This fidelity is itself your own episcopal motto! The Superiors of the Society are indubitably all dedicated to this fidelity of Archbishop Lefebvre, uncompromised fidelity to the faith, to the liturgy, to the morals and to the Church, as Bishop Fellay’s latest letter to friends and benefactors makes it manifest. We, priests of the Society of St Pius X, do not want to leave it! When I first met Archbishop Lefebvre, in Feb. 1976, at a time the media were speaking of him as “l’évêque de fer – the bishop of steel”, the quality that struck me most was his humility and meekness. He could truly say with St Paul: “be ye my imitators as I am of Christ!” (1 Cor. 11:1) “I live, not me, Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). Archbishop Lefebvre was a man of Faith, a man with a living Faith: he manifested by these virtues the true Faith that inhabited him. To be faithful to his example of sacerdotal holiness is also an essential part of the fidelity that each member of the Society of St Pius X should practice. I am sure that all the members of the Society of St Pius X would rejoice greatly if you would return to where you should never have left, within the Society of St Pius X, continuing in that same fidelity without introducing new ideas of the Catholic Church as a part of the visible Church. And if some orders seem difficult, since they are not against God, it is much more profitable for your soul and more excellent example given to others, to obey such orders with humility rather than resisting: “Therefore he that resisteth the power [authority], resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:2). For “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (Jac. 4:6). We all pray for you, that you may return with the meekness and humility of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary, Father François Laisney
-
These 'open letters' are becoming very tiresome....
-
These 'open letters' are becoming very tiresome....
Yep.
-
Perhaps they should be called "open with caution" letters.
-
Please note that the bosses of this "intellectual" toady keep him as far away from Menzingen, Econe or any of the other SSPX seminaries. Why? Because, were he to be made a professor at a seminary there is no way of guaranteeing that a 30 minute lecture would in fact last for 30 hours/days/years. He is in Singapore, where some of the faithful are still trying to figure out in what language he gives his sermons.
Zzzzzzzzz......
-
:sleep:
Please note that the bosses of this "intellectual" toady keep him as far away from Menzingen, Econe or any of the other SSPX seminaries. Why? Because, were he to be made a professor at a seminary there is no way of guaranteeing that a 30 minute lecture would in fact last for 30 hours/days/years. He is in Singapore, where some of the faithful are still trying to figure out in what language he gives his sermons.
Zzzzzzzzz......
:laugh1: :laugh2: :jester: :sleep: :confused1:
-
"We all pray for you, that you may return with the meekness and humility of Archbishop Lefebvre." (Concluding words of Fr. Laisney's "open letter")
Oh yeah, finish off a pseudo-intellectual, Pflugger-esque attack letter with some cheap platitude laced with hypocrisy. What arrogance to even presume such a vile rhetorical weapon he dares to call "prayer" would be heard by the God of all truth!
The more the likes of Fr. Laisney engage in such thinly veiled attempts at character assassination, the more one ought to grow certain that Bishop Williamson must really be onto something.
After all, if Bishop Williamson really is that "loose canon" who goes around thundering crazy, alarmist ideas that make Menzingen cringe with embarrassment, isn't it odd that Menzingen would then put so much energy into trying to discredit him? Why not just ignore him if he is THAT much off the mark and inconsequential?
For all the "prayer," "spirituality," and "holiness" these folks now urge, they themselves sure seem to have too much time on their hands.
-
Where did Father Laisney learn how to write so succinctly and concisely ?
-
These 'open letters' are becoming very tiresome....
Perhaps they should be called "open with caution" letters.
Oh, I know: Open At Your Own Risk Letters.
How about: Dare To Go Where Angels Fear To Tread Letters.
Wait, here's one: OPEN- SEASON ON +WILLIAMSON -Letters.
Good thing we're not Byzantine or Coptic -- I'd have to say:
OPEN -- SESAME -- LETTERS. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"We all pray for you, that you may return with the meekness and humility of Archbishop Lefebvre." (Concluding words of Fr. Laisney's "open letter")
Oh yeah, finish off a pseudo-intellectual, Pflugger-esque attack letter with some cheap platitude laced with hypocrisy. What arrogance to even presume such a vile rhetorical weapon he dares to call "prayer" would be heard by the God of all truth!
The more the likes of Fr. Laisney engage in such thinly veiled attempts at character assassination, the more one ought to grow certain that Bishop Williamson must really be onto something.
We really shouldn't be all too surprised because Fr. Laisney has had a lot of
practice doing this kind of subterfuge work.. He cut his teeth on attacking
a certain traditional group in the 1980's and did a rather hack job of that
too. Hey -- maybe he enjoys this!! Hack jobs, that is.
After all, if Bishop Williamson really is that "loose cannon" who goes around thundering crazy, alarmist ideas that make Menzingen cringe with embarrassment, isn't it odd that Menzingen would then put so much energy into trying to discredit him? Why not just ignore him if he is THAT much off the mark and inconsequential?
Well, obviously, he's not off the mark at all, is the reason why.
The Menzingen-denizens have to keep hurling epithets at him because
they have nothing substantive to hurl at him. Typical of liberals, and
getting more typical every day that goes by!
For all the "prayer," "spirituality," and "holiness" these folks now urge, they themselves sure seem to have too much time on their hands.
They're fretting and sweating for fear their lackeys are going to wake up.
After all, You can keep some of your lackeys asleep all the time, and
you can keep all your lackeys asleep some of the time, but you can't
keep all your lackeys asleep all the time.
BTW -- where's the next Recusant!!
-
Where did Father Laisney learn how to write so succinctly and concisely ?
Well, you certainly know how to spell these words but I think you
ought to look up their definitions, Incred.
suc·cinct [suhk-singkt]
adjective
1. expressed in few words; concise; terse.
2. characterized by conciseness or verbal brevity.
3. compressed into a small area, scope, or compass.
4. Archaic.
a. drawn up, as by a girdle.
b. close-fitting.
c. encircled, as by a girdle.
Related forms
suc·cinct·ly, adverb
con·cise [kuhn-sahys]
adjective
expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but
comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse: a concise explanation
of the company's retirement plan.
Related forms
con·cise·ly, adverb
-
Where did Father Laisney learn how to write so succinctly and concisely ?
:scratchchin:
I wished we could have seen your smiling face when you typed in that.
-
Where did Father Laisney learn how to write so succinctly and concisely ?
Where else but the School of Bishop Fellay? :cool:
-
Fr. François Laisney has an interesting history inside of the SSPX because of his out spoken positions. Unfortunately I have forgotten more than I remember of him. I just remember some of his functions; not order of events. So others can please help.
Fr. Laisney, a Frenchman, was ordained for the SSPX in 1982 at Econe by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Fr. Laisney after ordinations was sent to Australia and also served in New Zealand.
Fr. Laisney was once the District Superior of the U.S. from 1984-1990. I think it was right after the merge of the U.S. having two separate Districts (one on the west and one on the east).
He was also an editor of The Angelus Press.
He was then appointed District Bursar for the Australian District for a short time.
Then, he was appointed the District Superior of Australia in 1991-1994.
Fr. Laisney then served as the SSPX’s General Bursar in Menzingen, Switzerland from 1994 until 2002.
At some point in here, he was kicked out of Menzingen in that role because he was in favor of a [more] liberal policy. There was another split happening at that time, I think it was with Fr. Paul Aulagnier, District Superior of France, who was expelled for the position of a type of "reconciliation" with conciliar Rome. I believe it was over the Campos situation. (Ironic isn't it?)
At some time Fr. Laisney was a professor in the Australian seminary.
He was Prior two times in New Zealand in 2003-?, and 2005-2008.
Fr. Laisney wrote a couple of books. One of them on Feeneyism.
He was again the District Bursar for Australia in ?-2005
(...?)
Fr. Laisney is presently stationed in the Asian District under Fr. Daniel Couture.
(If anyone else can add to this -please feel free.)
============================================
With the new liberal "positioning" of the N-SSPX, here is a [hypocritical] quote from Fr. Laisney's book entitled: "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican". Where in it, Father Laisney adds the following commentary, after an included copy of the Archbishop's declaration in 1974 (refer page 11 in his book):
...When the Pope returns to the spirit of St. Paul, there will be no need of a "Protocol" nor even the lifting of any penalty. He will see that all these were but a persecution waged by the worshippers of "man making himself God," against the adorers of "God Who made Himself man." …
In addition to this, Fr. Laisney also signed the famous 1988 letter sent to the Pope from all of the SSPX Superiors at that time to "excommunicate" them also -not just the four new Bishops- but for all of them to have the "honor" to also be "excommunicated" with them (...).
Well, we can now follow the bouncing ball of hypocrisy.
It turns out that the "Hermeneutics of continuity" for yesterday = Is the SSPX "situation ethics" of today.
-
Open answer to the Open Letter of Bishop Williamson to the members of the SSPX
Singapore, May 12, 2013
Most Reverend and dear Bishop Williamson,
I hear the basic accusation: “the present leadership of the Society of St Pius X means to lead it away from the direction set for it by Archbishop Lefebvre, and towards the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council.” “Superiors meaning to lead them and yourselves towards, even into, the great apostasy of modern times.”
This is a very grievous accusation, that requires facts proportionate to prove it. But what do we get afterwards? An analysis of Bishop Fellay’s declaration of April 15, 2012 follows. From the very first paragraph one finds an evil twist. Indeed, Bishop Fellay wrote, as the first paragraph of his declaration: “We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter and head of the body of Bishops.” These words of bishop Fellay were almost an exact quote of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words: “I, Marcel Lefebvre, promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops” (May 5, 1988). Now who would not see in such promise a clear, unambiguous profession of Catholic Faith and fidelity to the Catholic Church? It seems hard to find something evil in this. Yet you do, writing that it “can easily be misdirected today towards the Conciliar Church as such, and to the Conciliar Pontiffs.” Your very comment destroys its own self; indeed you use the words “as such”, which means that you want to take words in their precise meaning. Just apply those words, “as such”, to Bishop Fellay’s original sentence and they refute your own comment: “We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church as such and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ as such, successor of Peter as such and head of the body of Bishops.” Thus to find evil even in this first sentence of Bishop Fellay manifests that “ill-disposition” of which St Thomas speaks in IIa IIae qu. 60 a.3: “this [interpreting doubts in the evil side] is due to a man being ill-disposed towards another: for when a man hates or despises another, or is angry with or envious of him, he is led by slight indications to think evil of him, because everyone easily believes what he desires.” The analysis continues in the same vein, and it is superfluous to go through each paragraph. Though that April 15th declaration is not without need of some corrections – which Bishop Fellay himself acknowledged – yet it is far from the original accusation that you try to prove. No, it is NOT true that “whoever studies these ten paragraphs in the original text can only conclude that their author or authors have given up the Archbishop’s fight for Tradition, and have gone over in their minds to Vatican II.” At most one may say that this text is weak and contains some inappropriate words (ambiguous, inexact, inappropriate, or simply wrong, like the 7th paragraph) in an effort to find a doctrinal declaration acceptable to the present members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is not true to say that the SSPX Headquarters has not retracted it (your French KE 303, but not in the English version: which one is the original?) Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012 that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work.
2
The same accusations are sometimes made against the Protocol of May 5, 1988, which had been prepared by the future Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and signed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Would you accuse these two the way you accused Bishop Fellay? Certainly not! If that declaration of April 15th had really “given up Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight for Tradition”, the modernists – who are no fools – would have rejoiced and accepted it! No matter how weak one reckons it, it remained too strong for the CDF and was unacceptable for them; it was therefore far from “giv[ing] up the Archbishop’s fight for Tradition.” By the way, any honest reader of Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter of May 6, 1988 [see my book Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican] would not agree with your writing: “It is well known that on May 6 he repudiated that Protocol because he himself recognized that it made too many concessions for the Society to be able to continue defending Tradition.” In that letter, Archbishop Lefebvre warmly thanked Cardinal Ratzinger for that Protocol, and far from disapproving it, he basically asked for a prompt implementation of it, requesting a proximate date for the approved Consecration (the only way in which he departed from the protocol is in the threat that, if no date were given to him, he would go ahead: he explained himself about that saying that such threat had been the only way to go forward in those negotiations). It is only after he received the response for it, with its requests for other candidates which made the given date of August 15th impossible to keep since there was not enough time to process the dossiers for those additional candidates, that faced with such a recurrent postponing game (June 30th was the fourth date, Archbishop Lefebvre having already postponed three times), he decided to go ahead on June 30th. Cardinal Ratzinger was visibly conscious that Rome had not treated Archbishop Lefebvre fairly in that matter, and thus wanted to correct it during his pontificate. You conclude at the end: “the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.” Given the disproportion of such conclusion – and of the above accusations – with the actual words of Bishop Fellay’s declaration (and with all the other accusations in the past 18th months, typically in the Open Letter to Bishop Fellay by supposedly 37 priests in France), when I try to understand the reasoning behind, it seems to me that the basic accusation is this one which you state: “The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there.” And the reasoning seems to be this one: the occupiers of the See of Peter and Roman Congregations are “the apostates of Rome”, men wholly dedicated to “the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council,” which is “the great apostasy of modern times”; any agreement whatsoever with them, any canonical recognition by them, makes one a collaborator in that great apostasy of modern time, a liberal, great enemy of God.
Now in all honesty, such reasoning was NEVER the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre! Indeed on March 22nd 1980, he was saying (Homec 20A1): “This is the reason why today particularly I insist on this unity among us. True, such unity is easier to keep for religious families in monasteries. For us who are very much spread out by the very nature of our priestly fraternity, unity may seem sometimes more difficult. Well, if it is more difficult, precisely it requires that we have stronger bonds, more solid, more resolute, in order to be well united with one another and work for the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in this religious family which is – once more – united with the Church of all times. And united with the Church of today, and even united, I would say, to her leaders who, if they are influenced with modern ideas to which we cannot adhere, if they are influenced with the ideas of this new right, as said Leo XIII, right that has been condemned by Leo XIII and all his predecessors, and if in this sense we do not feel united in thought with those with whom we should be in full communion of thought, it does not matter. This does not break this unity, because through their persons who should be fully submitted to Tradition, fully subject to what their predecessors have taught, we are united through them to this apostolicity which comes down through all the sovereign pontiffs to the present Sovereign Pontiff today reigning. In this we must be persuaded, convinced, that we are precisely, intimately, more than anyone, members of the Holy Church and with all the members of
3
the Church we fight for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ; even if some of them, unfortunately, by their conduct, their thinking, their writing, their acting, do not favour the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is indeed what happened throughout the history of the Church.” Does recognizing Pope Francis as the legitimate pope makes one a modernist? By doing so, we simply recognize the fact of his legitimacy as supreme pontiff, as the Archbishop said above. That part in him is still Catholic. And if that Catholic part does recognize us, it will neither make us modernists. Moreover, such reasoning manifests “to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.” Thus you fall in the very default that you accuse others. Indeed, Catholic Truth is not something you can take in part: either you believe the whole Faith or you have lost the whole Faith. Now one essential article of the Catholic Faith is precisely the faith in the Catholic Church, and especially the “faith in Peter” as Archbishop Lefebvre said on the very day of your own ordination, June 26, 1976: “O yes, we have Faith in Peter; we have faith in the successor of Peter!” And he said in another occasion: “If any one breaks with Rome, it will not be me.” From the beginning of the Society, he was careful to obtain the approval of Bishop Charrière and even shortly after Assisi he was still willing to postpone the Consecration in order to do it with the approval of the Pope and within a proper canonical structure. It is only in front the lack of good faith of those in authority at Rome that he went ahead without waiting for them. Catholic Faith teaches us that we cannot be saved alone, separated from the Church. Faith alone is not sufficient; without Charity, that “bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14) which binds us with Christ and with each member of Christ, it is impossible to go to Heaven. “And if I should have … all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, … and have not charity, I am nothing… it profiteth me nothing” (I Cor 13:2-3). If this internal bond with the Church, consisting in sanctifying grace and charity, is absolutely necessary for salvation, the external bond of the Church, consisting, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, in the profession of the Catholic Faith, the practice of Catholic worship (starting with the sacrament of Baptism) AND the hierarchical communion is also necessary for salvation, “re aut voto”; that is, in case without fault on one’s part one of these external aspect is not possible in fact, then at least the “votum – the firm desire and will” of it is necessary for salvation. Thus the Catholic Church teaches that the very desire of a proper canonical situation (in which basically the hierarchical communion consists) is necessary. Read St. Robert (quoted in Is Feeneyism Catholic? p. 40): he clearly says that if such hierarchical recognition is unjustly denied, the lack of it may not be an obstacle to salvation; but if it is not even desired, then that very lack of desire for hierarchical communion is an obstacle to salvation. You might say: yes, I want proper hierarchical communion, but with proper Catholic authorities, not with those presently occupying Rome. My answer is: this is basically the sedevacantist position, and was NEVER Archbishop Lefebvre’s position, nor is it in conformity with reality: it is not true. In some of your writings (Various Churches) you present the situation as if they are in the Conciliar Church and not in the Catholic Church, presenting the Catholic Church as only that part of the visible Church which would have remained sound. Here are your words: That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.
Now such thinking was NEVER the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre. (See my own text on Various Churches?) He never considered the Catholic Church as merely a part of the whole visible Church, a part whose boundaries would no longer be clearly visible, a part where there would no longer be a proper hierarchy, since as you wrote in that same text: “the ‘official Church’ is largely Conciliar and not Catholic.” The error of reasoning in that text is to confuse the being/essence and its properties/marks: from the fact that the four Marks of the Church are less visible in many areas due to the errors of the Council, especially the scandalous ecuмenism, one cannot conclude that they are “not Catholic”. In a famous sermon, on 29th June 1982 (Bishop Fellay’s ordination, and mine), Archbishop Lefebvre beautifully exposed the trial this present crisis is giving to the faith of some; he explained that the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ was a challenge to the Faith of some in the beginning of the Church, and there were some heretics who refused to recognise the true humanity of Christ saying that God
4
could not have suffered so much, and thus they devised that He only had an apparent body; and there were other heretics who refused to recognise the Divinity of Him who suffered so much. In a similar way the present Passion of the Church, Mystical Body of Christ, is a challenge to the faith of some, and there are some who refuse to recognise the errors and evils going on in the Church, saying that Christ could not let so much evil in the Church, and there are others who refuse to recognise that those officials who strayed so far from their duty may still be a part of the Mystical Body of Christ and they became sedevacantists. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected both errors, and explained that, as no one could have said beforehand how far could physical evil (suffering) go in the physical Body of Christ, so no one could say beforehand how far could spiritual evil (error and sin) go in the Mystical Body of Christ; it is a mystery that the Son of God could say in His sufferings: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46); yet one ought to remain faithful like Our Lady at the foot of the Cross. So it is a mystery to see that the successor of Peter could invite all religions together to pray at Assisi like John Paul II did: to pray to which God? Yet contra factum non fit argumentum, as you rightly reminded us often. Yet even after that Assisi scandalous meeting, Archbishop Lefebvre was working with Cardinal Gagnon to establish a proper canonical situation for the SSPX. Catholic Truth is that, in spite of all the imperfection and some deep sins of the successors of the Apostles, some saints, some reprobates and Judases, we must be in communion with them, because they are the successors of the Apostles. Then you might say: Yes, we recognise the Pope, but we ought to keep our distances, since “it is Superiors who mould their subjects and not the other way around.” Here the great principle of St. Augustine is there to calm your fears: “in the Church, communion with the wicked does not harm the just, so long as they do not consent with their wicked deeds.” Such fear must not make us reject that which is in itself good (hierarchical communion, ORDER within the Church), the right positioning of ourselves towards the possession of the authority that comes from Christ. Only when faced with the abusive exercise of that authority we should resist. What we ought to do – and this is what Bishop Fellay has been keen to do from the beginning of the offers of Rome, i.e. from the year 2000 – is to exercise the virtue of prudence and provide for the protection and guarantees for the continuation of the work of Tradition. When Bishop Fellay exposed in last year’s spring Cor Unum the principles that were directing his exercise of this prudence, he wrote: “Our principled position: the faith first and foremost: we intend to remain Catholic and, to that end, to preserve the Catholic faith first of all.” Then he exposed that “two points were absolutely necessary in order to assure our survival: The first is that no concessions affecting the faith and what follows from it (liturgy, sacraments, morality, discipline) may be demanded of the Society. The second is that a real liberty and autonomy of action should be granted to the Society, and that these freedoms should allow it to live and develop in concrete circuмstances.” How honestly can you write after that he is leading us “away from the direction set for it by Archbishop Lefebvre, and towards the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council… towards, even into, the great apostasy of modern times” and that he has “lost [his] grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth”? You may say that he had some imprudent and weak words, but you may not draw those outrageous conclusions of yours! They are so far from the whole reality, i.e. all that Bishop Fellay has said and not just a part, that one cannot but wonder whether it is not rather you who has lost his grip on truth. You warn us of “the danger in which your Superiors are placing their faith and therewith their eternal salvation.” Dear Monseigneur, there are priests who have been following you and have grievously fallen in scandalously schismatic declarations. Father Chazal gives a resoundingly schismatic “No!” to the question: “What we have is a complete entanglement of Truth and error, still good people having the Faith and rotten members. In case of such entanglement, as for the wheat and the chaff, what do we do? Do we go on the field? No!” If he is not in the field of Our Lord, he will not be gathered in the barn of Our Lord; he cannot be gathered in the barn of Our Lord if he is not in the field of Our Lord. Such “No!” is a refusal of the Church in concreto; it is really a schismatic No. Though in your loose association there is not real authority – a very liberal association indeed – yet, you have a certain moral leadership over them, and thus ought to correct him, for his own salvation. Unless he returns in the field, he will not be saved.
5
Protestants rejected the Church for the scandals of the renaissance Popes and bishops. We must not follow their example! Archbishop Lefebvre was really a “man of the Church”, a man whose whole life was in the service of the Church, a man faithful to the Church. It seems to me that this word, fidelity, can summarise the whole life and fight of Archbishop Lefebvre: he was faithful to the Faith, faithful to the Liturgy, faithful to the morals, faithful to the Church! That fidelity is very simply expressed in the words he asked to be put on his tomb: “I have delivered to you that which I have received.” This fidelity is itself your own episcopal motto! The Superiors of the Society are indubitably all dedicated to this fidelity of Archbishop Lefebvre, uncompromised fidelity to the faith, to the liturgy, to the morals and to the Church, as Bishop Fellay’s latest letter to friends and benefactors makes it manifest. We, priests of the Society of St Pius X, do not want to leave it! When I first met Archbishop Lefebvre, in Feb. 1976, at a time the media were speaking of him as “l’évêque de fer – the bishop of steel”, the quality that struck me most was his humility and meekness. He could truly say with St Paul: “be ye my imitators as I am of Christ!” (1 Cor. 11:1) “I live, not me, Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). Archbishop Lefebvre was a man of Faith, a man with a living Faith: he manifested by these virtues the true Faith that inhabited him. To be faithful to his example of sacerdotal holiness is also an essential part of the fidelity that each member of the Society of St Pius X should practice. I am sure that all the members of the Society of St Pius X would rejoice greatly if you would return to where you should never have left, within the Society of St Pius X, continuing in that same fidelity without introducing new ideas of the Catholic Church as a part of the visible Church. And if some orders seem difficult, since they are not against God, it is much more profitable for your soul and more excellent example given to others, to obey such orders with humility rather than resisting: “Therefore he that resisteth the power [authority], resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:2). For “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (Jac. 4:6). We all pray for you, that you may return with the meekness and humility of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary, Father François Laisney
Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth. Let us pray that Bishop Williamson (and his followers) will return to SSPX.
-
Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth. Let us pray that Bishop Williamson (and his followers) will return to SSPX.
Donatus, please be aware that Bishop Williamson never did want to leave the SSPX. He was expelled by Bishop Fellay. He has serious misgivings about Bishop Fellay's behavior, vis-a-vis the latter's dealings with Rome, and he went public on these. A speech of Bishop Williamson was posted on Youtube wherein he said words something like: "Bishop Fellay has to be kicked out."
It is Bishop Fellay who banned Bishop Williamson from attending the 2012 General Chapter thus preventing him from articulating his concerns about Bishop Fellay before the entire body; and later he expelled Bishop Williamson from the Society.
So you expect us to pray that Bishop Williamson " and his followers" return to the SSPX and meekly carry on under the Fellays, Pflugers, Nelys, Rostands and Coutures and Laisneys?.
How about Bishop Fellay reforming the electoral process for the election of the Superior General and his Assistants, whereby every priest of the SSPX has a vote and not just Bishop Fellay's hand-picked General Chapter Delegates? How about Bishop Fellay " and his followers" agreeing to resign and hold elections under a reformed system as a gesture of goodwill to Bishop Williamson " and his followers", making their re-entry into the Society easier?
-
Open answer to the Open Letter of Bishop Williamson to the members of the SSPX
Singapore, May 12, 2013
Most Reverend and dear Bishop Williamson,
I hear the basic accusation: “the present leadership of the Society of St Pius X means to lead it away from the direction set for it by Archbishop Lefebvre, and towards the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council.” “Superiors meaning to lead them and yourselves towards, even into, the great apostasy of modern times.”
This is a very grievous accusation, that requires facts proportionate to prove it. But what do we get afterwards? An analysis of Bishop Fellay’s declaration of April 15, 2012 follows. From the very first paragraph one finds an evil twist. Indeed, Bishop Fellay wrote, as the first paragraph of his declaration: “We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter and head of the body of Bishops.” These words of bishop Fellay were almost an exact quote of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words: “I, Marcel Lefebvre, promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops” (May 5, 1988). Now who would not see in such promise a clear, unambiguous profession of Catholic Faith and fidelity to the Catholic Church? It seems hard to find something evil in this. Yet you do, writing that it “can easily be misdirected today towards the Conciliar Church as such, and to the Conciliar Pontiffs.” Your very comment destroys its own self; indeed you use the words “as such”, which means that you want to take words in their precise meaning. Just apply those words, “as such”, to Bishop Fellay’s original sentence and they refute your own comment: “We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church as such and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ as such, successor of Peter as such and head of the body of Bishops.” Thus to find evil even in this first sentence of Bishop Fellay manifests that “ill-disposition” of which St Thomas speaks in IIa IIae qu. 60 a.3: “this [interpreting doubts in the evil side] is due to a man being ill-disposed towards another: for when a man hates or despises another, or is angry with or envious of him, he is led by slight indications to think evil of him, because everyone easily believes what he desires.” The analysis continues in the same vein, and it is superfluous to go through each paragraph. Though that April 15th declaration is not without need of some corrections – which Bishop Fellay himself acknowledged – yet it is far from the original accusation that you try to prove. No, it is NOT true that “whoever studies these ten paragraphs in the original text can only conclude that their author or authors have given up the Archbishop’s fight for Tradition, and have gone over in their minds to Vatican II.” At most one may say that this text is weak and contains some inappropriate words (ambiguous, inexact, inappropriate, or simply wrong, like the 7th paragraph) in an effort to find a doctrinal declaration acceptable to the present members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is not true to say that the SSPX Headquarters has not retracted it (your French KE 303, but not in the English version: which one is the original?) Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012 that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work.
2
The same accusations are sometimes made against the Protocol of May 5, 1988, which had been prepared by the future Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and signed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Would you accuse these two the way you accused Bishop Fellay? Certainly not! If that declaration of April 15th had really “given up Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight for Tradition”, the modernists – who are no fools – would have rejoiced and accepted it! No matter how weak one reckons it, it remained too strong for the CDF and was unacceptable for them; it was therefore far from “giv[ing] up the Archbishop’s fight for Tradition.” By the way, any honest reader of Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter of May 6, 1988 [see my book Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican] would not agree with your writing: “It is well known that on May 6 he repudiated that Protocol because he himself recognized that it made too many concessions for the Society to be able to continue defending Tradition.” In that letter, Archbishop Lefebvre warmly thanked Cardinal Ratzinger for that Protocol, and far from disapproving it, he basically asked for a prompt implementation of it, requesting a proximate date for the approved Consecration (the only way in which he departed from the protocol is in the threat that, if no date were given to him, he would go ahead: he explained himself about that saying that such threat had been the only way to go forward in those negotiations). It is only after he received the response for it, with its requests for other candidates which made the given date of August 15th impossible to keep since there was not enough time to process the dossiers for those additional candidates, that faced with such a recurrent postponing game (June 30th was the fourth date, Archbishop Lefebvre having already postponed three times), he decided to go ahead on June 30th. Cardinal Ratzinger was visibly conscious that Rome had not treated Archbishop Lefebvre fairly in that matter, and thus wanted to correct it during his pontificate. You conclude at the end: “the Society’s leadership seems to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.” Given the disproportion of such conclusion – and of the above accusations – with the actual words of Bishop Fellay’s declaration (and with all the other accusations in the past 18th months, typically in the Open Letter to Bishop Fellay by supposedly 37 priests in France), when I try to understand the reasoning behind, it seems to me that the basic accusation is this one which you state: “The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there.” And the reasoning seems to be this one: the occupiers of the See of Peter and Roman Congregations are “the apostates of Rome”, men wholly dedicated to “the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council,” which is “the great apostasy of modern times”; any agreement whatsoever with them, any canonical recognition by them, makes one a collaborator in that great apostasy of modern time, a liberal, great enemy of God.
Now in all honesty, such reasoning was NEVER the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre! Indeed on March 22nd 1980, he was saying (Homec 20A1): “This is the reason why today particularly I insist on this unity among us. True, such unity is easier to keep for religious families in monasteries. For us who are very much spread out by the very nature of our priestly fraternity, unity may seem sometimes more difficult. Well, if it is more difficult, precisely it requires that we have stronger bonds, more solid, more resolute, in order to be well united with one another and work for the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in this religious family which is – once more – united with the Church of all times. And united with the Church of today, and even united, I would say, to her leaders who, if they are influenced with modern ideas to which we cannot adhere, if they are influenced with the ideas of this new right, as said Leo XIII, right that has been condemned by Leo XIII and all his predecessors, and if in this sense we do not feel united in thought with those with whom we should be in full communion of thought, it does not matter. This does not break this unity, because through their persons who should be fully submitted to Tradition, fully subject to what their predecessors have taught, we are united through them to this apostolicity which comes down through all the sovereign pontiffs to the present Sovereign Pontiff today reigning. In this we must be persuaded, convinced, that we are precisely, intimately, more than anyone, members of the Holy Church and with all the members of
3
the Church we fight for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ; even if some of them, unfortunately, by their conduct, their thinking, their writing, their acting, do not favour the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is indeed what happened throughout the history of the Church.” Does recognizing Pope Francis as the legitimate pope makes one a modernist? By doing so, we simply recognize the fact of his legitimacy as supreme pontiff, as the Archbishop said above. That part in him is still Catholic. And if that Catholic part does recognize us, it will neither make us modernists. Moreover, such reasoning manifests “to have lost its grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth.” Thus you fall in the very default that you accuse others. Indeed, Catholic Truth is not something you can take in part: either you believe the whole Faith or you have lost the whole Faith. Now one essential article of the Catholic Faith is precisely the faith in the Catholic Church, and especially the “faith in Peter” as Archbishop Lefebvre said on the very day of your own ordination, June 26, 1976: “O yes, we have Faith in Peter; we have faith in the successor of Peter!” And he said in another occasion: “If any one breaks with Rome, it will not be me.” From the beginning of the Society, he was careful to obtain the approval of Bishop Charrière and even shortly after Assisi he was still willing to postpone the Consecration in order to do it with the approval of the Pope and within a proper canonical structure. It is only in front the lack of good faith of those in authority at Rome that he went ahead without waiting for them. Catholic Faith teaches us that we cannot be saved alone, separated from the Church. Faith alone is not sufficient; without Charity, that “bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14) which binds us with Christ and with each member of Christ, it is impossible to go to Heaven. “And if I should have … all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, … and have not charity, I am nothing… it profiteth me nothing” (I Cor 13:2-3). If this internal bond with the Church, consisting in sanctifying grace and charity, is absolutely necessary for salvation, the external bond of the Church, consisting, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, in the profession of the Catholic Faith, the practice of Catholic worship (starting with the sacrament of Baptism) AND the hierarchical communion is also necessary for salvation, “re aut voto”; that is, in case without fault on one’s part one of these external aspect is not possible in fact, then at least the “votum – the firm desire and will” of it is necessary for salvation. Thus the Catholic Church teaches that the very desire of a proper canonical situation (in which basically the hierarchical communion consists) is necessary. Read St. Robert (quoted in Is Feeneyism Catholic? p. 40): he clearly says that if such hierarchical recognition is unjustly denied, the lack of it may not be an obstacle to salvation; but if it is not even desired, then that very lack of desire for hierarchical communion is an obstacle to salvation. You might say: yes, I want proper hierarchical communion, but with proper Catholic authorities, not with those presently occupying Rome. My answer is: this is basically the sedevacantist position, and was NEVER Archbishop Lefebvre’s position, nor is it in conformity with reality: it is not true. In some of your writings (Various Churches) you present the situation as if they are in the Conciliar Church and not in the Catholic Church, presenting the Catholic Church as only that part of the visible Church which would have remained sound. Here are your words: That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.
Now such thinking was NEVER the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre. (See my own text on Various Churches?) He never considered the Catholic Church as merely a part of the whole visible Church, a part whose boundaries would no longer be clearly visible, a part where there would no longer be a proper hierarchy, since as you wrote in that same text: “the ‘official Church’ is largely Conciliar and not Catholic.” The error of reasoning in that text is to confuse the being/essence and its properties/marks: from the fact that the four Marks of the Church are less visible in many areas due to the errors of the Council, especially the scandalous ecuмenism, one cannot conclude that they are “not Catholic”. In a famous sermon, on 29th June 1982 (Bishop Fellay’s ordination, and mine), Archbishop Lefebvre beautifully exposed the trial this present crisis is giving to the faith of some; he explained that the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ was a challenge to the Faith of some in the beginning of the Church, and there were some heretics who refused to recognise the true humanity of Christ saying that God
4
could not have suffered so much, and thus they devised that He only had an apparent body; and there were other heretics who refused to recognise the Divinity of Him who suffered so much. In a similar way the present Passion of the Church, Mystical Body of Christ, is a challenge to the faith of some, and there are some who refuse to recognise the errors and evils going on in the Church, saying that Christ could not let so much evil in the Church, and there are others who refuse to recognise that those officials who strayed so far from their duty may still be a part of the Mystical Body of Christ and they became sedevacantists. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected both errors, and explained that, as no one could have said beforehand how far could physical evil (suffering) go in the physical Body of Christ, so no one could say beforehand how far could spiritual evil (error and sin) go in the Mystical Body of Christ; it is a mystery that the Son of God could say in His sufferings: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46); yet one ought to remain faithful like Our Lady at the foot of the Cross. So it is a mystery to see that the successor of Peter could invite all religions together to pray at Assisi like John Paul II did: to pray to which God? Yet contra factum non fit argumentum, as you rightly reminded us often. Yet even after that Assisi scandalous meeting, Archbishop Lefebvre was working with Cardinal Gagnon to establish a proper canonical situation for the SSPX. Catholic Truth is that, in spite of all the imperfection and some deep sins of the successors of the Apostles, some saints, some reprobates and Judases, we must be in communion with them, because they are the successors of the Apostles. Then you might say: Yes, we recognise the Pope, but we ought to keep our distances, since “it is Superiors who mould their subjects and not the other way around.” Here the great principle of St. Augustine is there to calm your fears: “in the Church, communion with the wicked does not harm the just, so long as they do not consent with their wicked deeds.” Such fear must not make us reject that which is in itself good (hierarchical communion, ORDER within the Church), the right positioning of ourselves towards the possession of the authority that comes from Christ. Only when faced with the abusive exercise of that authority we should resist. What we ought to do – and this is what Bishop Fellay has been keen to do from the beginning of the offers of Rome, i.e. from the year 2000 – is to exercise the virtue of prudence and provide for the protection and guarantees for the continuation of the work of Tradition. When Bishop Fellay exposed in last year’s spring Cor Unum the principles that were directing his exercise of this prudence, he wrote: “Our principled position: the faith first and foremost: we intend to remain Catholic and, to that end, to preserve the Catholic faith first of all.” Then he exposed that “two points were absolutely necessary in order to assure our survival: The first is that no concessions affecting the faith and what follows from it (liturgy, sacraments, morality, discipline) may be demanded of the Society. The second is that a real liberty and autonomy of action should be granted to the Society, and that these freedoms should allow it to live and develop in concrete circuмstances.” How honestly can you write after that he is leading us “away from the direction set for it by Archbishop Lefebvre, and towards the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council… towards, even into, the great apostasy of modern times” and that he has “lost [his] grip on the primacy of truth, especially Catholic Truth”? You may say that he had some imprudent and weak words, but you may not draw those outrageous conclusions of yours! They are so far from the whole reality, i.e. all that Bishop Fellay has said and not just a part, that one cannot but wonder whether it is not rather you who has lost his grip on truth. You warn us of “the danger in which your Superiors are placing their faith and therewith their eternal salvation.” Dear Monseigneur, there are priests who have been following you and have grievously fallen in scandalously schismatic declarations. Father Chazal gives a resoundingly schismatic “No!” to the question: “What we have is a complete entanglement of Truth and error, still good people having the Faith and rotten members. In case of such entanglement, as for the wheat and the chaff, what do we do? Do we go on the field? No!” If he is not in the field of Our Lord, he will not be gathered in the barn of Our Lord; he cannot be gathered in the barn of Our Lord if he is not in the field of Our Lord. Such “No!” is a refusal of the Church in concreto; it is really a schismatic No. Though in your loose association there is not real authority – a very liberal association indeed – yet, you have a certain moral leadership over them, and thus ought to correct him, for his own salvation. Unless he returns in the field, he will not be saved.
5
Protestants rejected the Church for the scandals of the renaissance Popes and bishops. We must not follow their example! Archbishop Lefebvre was really a “man of the Church”, a man whose whole life was in the service of the Church, a man faithful to the Church. It seems to me that this word, fidelity, can summarise the whole life and fight of Archbishop Lefebvre: he was faithful to the Faith, faithful to the Liturgy, faithful to the morals, faithful to the Church! That fidelity is very simply expressed in the words he asked to be put on his tomb: “I have delivered to you that which I have received.” This fidelity is itself your own episcopal motto! The Superiors of the Society are indubitably all dedicated to this fidelity of Archbishop Lefebvre, uncompromised fidelity to the faith, to the liturgy, to the morals and to the Church, as Bishop Fellay’s latest letter to friends and benefactors makes it manifest. We, priests of the Society of St Pius X, do not want to leave it! When I first met Archbishop Lefebvre, in Feb. 1976, at a time the media were speaking of him as “l’évêque de fer – the bishop of steel”, the quality that struck me most was his humility and meekness. He could truly say with St Paul: “be ye my imitators as I am of Christ!” (1 Cor. 11:1) “I live, not me, Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). Archbishop Lefebvre was a man of Faith, a man with a living Faith: he manifested by these virtues the true Faith that inhabited him. To be faithful to his example of sacerdotal holiness is also an essential part of the fidelity that each member of the Society of St Pius X should practice. I am sure that all the members of the Society of St Pius X would rejoice greatly if you would return to where you should never have left, within the Society of St Pius X, continuing in that same fidelity without introducing new ideas of the Catholic Church as a part of the visible Church. And if some orders seem difficult, since they are not against God, it is much more profitable for your soul and more excellent example given to others, to obey such orders with humility rather than resisting: “Therefore he that resisteth the power [authority], resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:2). For “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble” (Jac. 4:6). We all pray for you, that you may return with the meekness and humility of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Yours sincerely in Jesus and Mary, Father François Laisney
Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth. Let us pray that Bishop Williamson (and his followers) will return to SSPX.
Looks like someone made the wrong turn on their way to AngelQueen.
-
Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth. Let us pray that Bishop Williamson (and his followers) will return to SSPX.
Looks like someone made the wrong turn on their way to AngelQueen.
....and looking through the "Newly Issued" neo-SSPX glasses. (Sit boy, now that's good dog!!!......Sit, Play, & Obey).
(http://www.nittanybeaglerescue.org/images/rose_colored_glasses.jpg)
-
It seems the SSPX, under Msgr. Fellay is now dead and in the sepulchre.
On paper, Bishop Fellay out foxed us. He controls all SSPX assets.
He selects, forms and rules naïve, priestly minds.
He is king of the Society mountain and has "won the game".
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsULLhiHIibPhLpLZpMOy3EzP1UR5X8Z5CE9CXbcQ0DaMdayw0)
If there is any criticism for +ABL and the other SSPX bishops, it would be that they should have seen this coming early on and maneuvered around him.
For example, from the beginning, Mr. Roger Lovey's financial support and ties to the dark horse, Father Fellay was highly suspicious.
Unless, Divine intercession causes Bp. Fellay's "other shoe to drop" exposing and ousting him, the neoSSPX is done for.
In the meantime, with Liberationist, Pope Francis at the helm, we best "hunker down" and literally prepare for the worst.
-
This letter of Fr. Laisney is grounded in the same liberalism as he had when he was removed from Menzingen during the time of the Campos betrayal (2002-2003).
Fr. Laisney’s main objective, like the rest of the N-SSPX leaders, is to be “recognized” by the conciliarists –not Eternal Rome- but by the conciliarists; that is it. No Doctrinal rectitude involved, or to have the same profession of Creed. Just recognize us in your party of conciliarism. Like those Catholics, priests, and Bishops wanted to do, and did, in the time they went over to put incense of allegiance and recognition to the French Revolution.
The very truth is, the SSPX does not need to be re- regularized; as Archbishop Lefebvre held, the SSPX's canonical status has no defect! On November 1, 1970, the SSPX was lawfully and canonically founded. It is already an approved order of the Church, and after Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration, it was conciliar Rome that did not like Catholic Tradition and followed with an illegal supposed suppression of 1975; which was not valid, in the same way that the supposed excommunications were not valid.
In other words, the present N-SSPX leaders believe more in the illegal suppression of Archbishop Lefebvre to get re-regularized than they do in Archbishop Lefebvre himself who has been constantly showing these “adolescence priests” in the fight of survival of what the True Church Law has to say in the matter –then to have a conviction in Her protection from these illegal maneuvers- Supplied Jurisdiction; until conciliar Rome converts back to Tradition; then all of this will go away.
Remember Fr. Laisney said this in his book: "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican". Where in it, Father Laisney adds the following commentary, after an included copy of the Archbishop's declaration in 1974 (refer page 11 in his book):
...When the Pope returns to the spirit of St. Paul, there will be no need of a "Protocol" nor even the lifting of any penalty. He will see that all these were but a persecution waged by the worshippers of "man making himself God," against the adorers of "God Who made Himself man." …
What follows in the rudeness of Fr. Laisney’s new article, is more “hyperbole” insults on the original Providential position of protecting the Faith. That is what the liberals did in the French Revolution, and the revolution of Vatican II, use ambiguous language to change the course of events to justify the means -to get the desired results –the lifestyle of liberal conciliar catholicism.
The N-SSPX is now all “surface” and no longer “substance”.
More to his article.
• After Fr. Laisney tries to find a platform to launch his liberal illusions of attacking the Lion, Bishop Williamson, he yet admits in his quote:
“…The analysis continues in the same vein, and it is superfluous to go through each paragraph [of B.W.’s letter]. Though that April 15th declaration is not without need of some corrections – which Bishop Fellay himself acknowledged – yet it is far from the original accusation that you try to prove. No, it is NOT true that “whoever studies these ten paragraphs in the original text can only conclude that their author or authors have given up the Archbishop’s fight for Tradition, and have gone over in their minds to Vatican II.” At most one may say that this text is weak and contains some inappropriate words (ambiguous, inexact, inappropriate, or simply wrong, like the 7th paragraph) in an effort to find a doctrinal declaration acceptable to the present members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”[/u][/b] Ta-daaa, you see that Bishop Fellay is an ambiguous liberal, so you are now a “resistance” priest against the new liberal theology, right? No, what will follow will be an applied “situation ethics” course meant to “loosen” your head.
• Then he follows into a “switch and bait” of false representation:
“The same accusations are sometimes made against the Protocol of May 5, 1988, which had been prepared by the future Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and signed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Would you accuse these two the way you accused Bishop Fellay?”
• Yet he comes back to some sense of reality in admitting the problem, then he intellectually crashes thereafter in the rest of his article. To say:
Given the disproportion of such conclusion – and of the above accusations – with the actual words of Bishop Fellay’s declaration (and with all the other accusations in the past 18th months, typically in the Open Letter to Bishop Fellay by supposedly 37 priests in France), when I try to understand the reasoning behind, it seems to me that the basic accusation is this one which you state: “The problem is less the agreement than the desire of any agreement that will grant to the Society official recognition, and that desire is still very much there.” And the reasoning seems to be this one: the occupiers of the See of Peter and Roman Congregations are “the apostates of Rome”, men wholly dedicated to “the ideas and ideals of the Second Vatican Council,” which is “the great apostasy of modern times”; any agreement whatsoever with them, any canonical recognition by them, makes one a collaborator in that great apostasy of modern time, a liberal, great enemy of God. Now in all honesty, such reasoning was NEVER the reasoning of Archbishop Lefebvre!”
Hello Fr. Laisney, it WAS the reasoning of the 2006 General Chapter to put the Faith first, Doctrine first. That is what separates all religions –remember? It is for conciliar Rome to convert, and for Rome to return back to Her identity of Tradition; including the retraction of Vatican II, with the upholding and profession of the oath against modernism, Pascendi, etc… So, it is you Fr. Laisney who are illusional in your desire to lie in the trap of the dead.
• Further, Fr. Laisney, and crew, disassociate the ABL of 1980 from the following 8-years of experience, meetings, and wisdom in dealing with apostate Rome to the ABL of 1988 onwards; to now play the 1980’s “he said this” game instead of the 1988 (and today’s) realistic “he said it is time to fight for survival”! No compromise!
• Fr. Laisney continues to sacrifice “Eternal Rome” in order to capitulate to “conciliar Rome”. He returns back to Fr. Rostand’s and Fr. Themann’s “Prudence over Principle” position. In other words, to have a “practical agreement” over a “Doctrinal agreement”!
• He also comes back in hitting the piñata with more mumbo-jumbo language to have us believe that the “conciliar church” is the same as the “Catholic Church”! Nonsense!
• Also he tries to defend his liberal position, to apply St. Augustine’s words of his time, to the unprecedented apostate times of today, to say: “to be in the church, communion with the wicked does not harm the just, so long as they do not consent with their wicked deeds.” And, “Such fear must not make us reject that which is in itself good (hierarchical communion, ORDER within the Church), the right positioning of ourselves towards the possession of the authority that comes from Christ. Only when faced with the abusive exercise of that authority we should resist.” Well Fr. Laisney, resist we do! Where have you been all of these years in the face of all of these abuses? Have the abuses gone away?
• But these liberals do not want to see it anymore. That is why they put in their scandalous 6-conditons of the 2012 General Chapter to be under the authority of the conciliar Bishops! It is MAD and insane to purposely put yourself in a position under a wolf when he said he is going to eat you! That is not humility, nor obedience, it is blind pride!
• With the behavior of a child, Fr. Laisney patronizes Bishop Fellay in last year’s spring Cor Unum of the principles that were directing his exercise of prudence, he wrote that he wants to cover over Bishop Fellay’s scandals by injecting that “[Bishop Fellay] wants to keep the faith, the liturgy, sacraments, morality, and discipline”. All the while saying, that the new Code of Canon Law to give the Eucharist to non-c atholics is acceptable! Along with, that the New Order mass is “legitimate”, which means the N.O. mass has legitimate sacraments, morality, and discipline…. Legitimate means that it is good and wholesome as a true means of salvation! Obsured, as Archbishop Lefebvre has said that it is a “bastard” mass. One out of wedlock of the Church. It does not have the marks of the Catholic Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic!
• Fr. Laisney then comes back to recognition to say: “You may say that he [Bishop Fellay] had some imprudent and weak words, but you may not draw those outrageous conclusions of yours!” Really? Just above Fr. Laisney you admitted that it “…contains some inappropriate words (ambiguous, inexact, inappropriate, or simply wrong, like the 7th paragraph)! So there is the bouncing ball of a liberal with a baby rattler in his hand complaining that no one is listening to him.
• Conclusion: like the tactics of Vatican II -just submit and obey- to the disorder and death of the French Revolution in the Church.
You have a free will Fr. Laisney, to put incense on “Baal”, not me…not on my blood!
-
Good redaction and refutation, Machabees.
It seems that the hinge of Fr. Laisney's argument is that nobody is fit to judge Bp. Fellay's intentions in the AFD, the strongest permissible conclusion being that he made some erroneous and ambiguous expressions. This being the case, nobody can say that the SSPX direction is compromised, and all members must continue in obedience. I think the argument is really that simple.
If it were true that we have no knowledge of his intentions, or that we must assume his intentions were good (that is, conformed to Catholic Truth and the spiritual legacy of Abp. Lefebvre), then the fact that he was capable of submitting a thoroughly ambiguous and erroneous doctrinal declaration to Rome as the basis of negotiation would be proof that his leadership is totally inept, providing grounds for his reproval and replacement.
However, it is not true that Bp. Fellay is inept, because on the matter of his intentions, what he wrote to BXVI shortly after June 13 2012 is conclusive:
I had believed that you were disposed to postpone until later the resolution of the disputes that still remain over certain points of the Council and of the liturgical reform, much as the Council of Florence had passed over in silence the question concerning divorce on account of adultery among the Greeks, so as to effect a union. With such a view in mind I committed myself, despite rather strong opposition within the ranks of the Society, and at the expense of significant troubles. And I do intend to continue to make every effort to pursue this path in order to arrive at the necessary clarifications.
He intended the ambiguities and additional concessions as a means to achieve a practical agreement with the Conciliar Church.
-
In reading the new addition of TheRecusant, I went back and re-read (for the third time) the good article of Bishop Williamson's "OPEN LETTER TO PRIESTS of the SOCIETY of ST PIUS X", and it stands out all the more disingenuous of Fr. Laisney to try and skirt the issues of Bishop Williamson's objections like a "south-paw" in a boxing ring.
In other words, Fr. Laisney remains without credence in tip-toeing around the MAJOR issues Bishop Williamson presented; while giving a "poodle" attack on only some of the minor issues; making it look like he is a intellectual "bull dog" (not against the Lion), only to respond to Bishop Williamson and say: "...it is superfluous to go through each paragraph."
In another point of the hypocrisy of these liberals. Fr. Laisney is the first to "bash" anyone who "disrespects" the authority of Bishop Fellay in this liberal agenda, so what does Fr. Laisney do? He is the first to "bash" Bishop Williamson with disrespect and the priesthood of his brother priests in the "resistance" standing up for the Faith.
Also with reflection, I notice that Fr. Laisney has been the only one (next to Fr. Rostand) who really has come out to fight and push this new liberal theology of the N-SSPX with so many articles that are published on the various sspx websites.
When I go back to remember that Fr. Laisney was also in the "fight" with Fr. Aulagnier to get the official SSPX in an "approval and recognition" compromise, like Campos has in the same deal situation with conciliar Rome, it seems that Fr. Laisney's day is here; and he is gleaning in his ears to take this "puppy" and run with it, as his own, and take it for a home run delivered to the conciliar coffins.
What is really "superfluous" is all of this N-SSPX nonsense.
Remember N-SSPX priests, thou art a Priest of the High Priest, please act like one.
-
Good analogy. Father Laisney, the French poodle attacking His Lordship, Bishop Williamson, the English Lion.
Such a photo is hard to find.
Maybe Father Laisney's attack could be better be represented by this photo?
(http://seancrane.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/jackal_lion_tail_11.jpg)
-
That looked like a snake, but now -- is it a lion's tail?? And a fox?
-
That looked like a snake, but now -- is it a lion's tail?? And a fox?
Close.
It's a "Black Backed Jackal" sniffing a Lion's tail.
-
Good stuff here, Machabees!
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24548&min=20#p0)
In reading the new addition of TheRecusant, I went back and re-read (for the third time) the good article of Bishop Williamson's "OPEN LETTER TO PRIESTS of the SOCIETY of ST PIUS X", and it stands out all the more disingenuous of Fr. Laisney to try and skirt the issues of Bishop Williamson's objections like a "south-paw" in a boxing ring.
In other words, Fr. Laisney remains without credence in tip-toeing around the MAJOR issues Bishop Williamson presented; while giving a "poodle" attack on only some of the minor issues; making it look like he is a intellectual "bull dog" (not against the Lion), only to respond to Bishop Williamson and say: "...it is superfluous to go through each paragraph."
In another point of the hypocrisy of these liberals, Fr. Laisney is the first to "bash" anyone who "disrespects" the authority of Bishop Fellay in this liberal agenda, so what does Fr. Laisney do? He is the first to "bash" Bishop Williamson with disrespect and the priesthood of his brother priests in the "resistance" standing up for the Faith.
I've returned to this thread three times and this one paragraph keeps standing
out to me. The hypocrisy aspect of what you have noticed here, Machabees,
is most telling. There has got to be a way of putting this whole scenario into
a capsule that you can drop on the Accordistas. What do they need to hear?
How can this be explained without making their ears close and their minds
wander -- they've been TRUTH-PROOFED and such FACTS do not get through
their boilerplate pre-determined subjective reality. This does not fit their world
view. Someone must have the trick method..
Who is it?
This message of Fr. Laisney and Fr. Rostand coming out to push new liberal
theology of the Neo-SSPX via articles published in DICI and sspx.org -- this
is the kind of message that we should have on flash cards to memorize,
because when we face the ignorant this is what will inform them. Do they
want their grandson to be a seminarian under this kind of leadership - new
liberal theology?? Is that what we want to have bearing on our conscience
at our particular judgment, that we knew better and we said nothing???!!!
Also with reflection, I notice that Fr. Laisney has been the only one (next to Fr. Rostand) who really has come out to fight and push this new liberal theology of the N-SSPX with so many articles that are published on the various sspx websites.
When I go back to remember that Fr. Laisney was also in the "fight" with Fr. Aulagnier to get the official SSPX in an "approval and recognition" compromise, like Campos has in the same deal situation with conciliar Rome, it seems that
Fr. Laisney's day is here; and he is gleaning in his ears to take this "puppy" and run with it, as his own, and take it for a home run delivered to the conciliar coffins.
What is really "superfluous" is all of this N-SSPX nonsense.
Remember N-SSPX priests, thou art a Priest of the High Priest, please act like one.
-
That looked like a snake, but now -- is it a lion's tail?? And a fox?
Close.
It's a "Black Backed Jackal" sniffing a Lion's tail.
Ah, yes! The old Black-Backed-Jackal-sniffing-a-lion's-tail trick!
(http://mrdrybones.com/blog/getSmart.jpg)
-
Fr. Laisney's entire response is "superfluous" as far as I'm concerned..I'm done listening to the apologists for the current regime in Menzingen.."By their fruits you shall know them"...they've done enough damage...He's talking to the bishop expelled for his love of truth...all truth. That's a fact...Bp Williamson was always the "canary in the mine shaft" so to speak....if the SSPX began to bully or muzzle him :detective:then you knew they were going bad..
Kevin Barrett at veteranstoday interviewed H.E. and it seems as though it's become accepted that H.E. was unjustly transferred to Argentina in '03 bc he spoke out early--as it turns out rightly--against the provably false semi-official version of 9-11...If that's true, and it seems it is, then the SSPX had already had the signs of cowardice and dry-rot back then...And look behind the curtain and what do you see? Max Krah, zionist Jєω...
-
Did Fr Laisney ever reply to 'Veritas1961'?
-
:sleep:Please note that the bosses of this "intellectual" toady keep him as far away from Menzingen, Econe or any of the other SSPX seminaries. Why? Because, were he to be made a professor at a seminary there is no way of guaranteeing that a 30 minute lecture would in fact last for 30 hours/days/years. He is in Singapore, where some of the faithful are still trying to figure out in what language he gives his sermons.
Zzzzzzzzz......
:laugh1: :laugh2: :jester: :sleep: :confused1:
The same story almost everywhere :laugh2:
-
Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth. Let us pray that Bishop Williamson (and his followers) will return to SSPX.
Welcome to CI Donatus. Can you explain to us where exactly Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth? Without further elaboration, your comment is hollow.
-
The more that Fr. Laisney and the other Menzingenites write, the further they expose themselves for the liars and poor sophists that they are. They simply believe that the end justifies the means, so they continue to hide what they don't want us and the conciliarists to know. It is really very simple to defend the truth, it does not take much effort and explanation. If they had the truth, they would be better communicators.
-
Has anyone noticed the "Apostolate trail" of Bishop Williamson, from where his assignments have been, to which places he has been transferred, to what has been left in the fruit of his wake?
- Country of the United States (Seminary).
- Country of Argentina (Seminary).
- Country of England (muzzled is an attic).
Does anyone see anything in common to all of them?
These three countries have been the strongest in the Catholic Resistance against the liberal theology of the N-SSPX!
Indeed, thank you Bishop Williamson, for training some good priests who have been popping up all around the world in the battle of the Faith; and for teaching us faithful how to discern, how to love the Truth, how to Love God, and how to fight these "dogs of error" with the same tools Archbishop Lefebvre gave to us: the tried and true Encyclicals of the Popes, all of Catholic Tradition, and Fathers of the Church.
No compromise!
Martyrdom before treason!
As Archbishop Lefebvre won so many battles standing for the Truth Faith without compromise, you have been a True son of Archbishop Lefebvre to carry on the torch.
Deo Gratias...
-
Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth. Let us pray that Bishop Williamson (and his followers) will return to SSPX.
Looks like someone made the wrong turn on their way to AngelQueen.
....and looking through the "Newly Issued" neo-SSPX glasses. (Sit boy, now that's good dog!!!......Sit, Play, & Obey).
(http://www.nittanybeaglerescue.org/images/rose_colored_glasses.jpg)
:laugh1:
-
Has anyone noticed the "Apostolate trail" of Bishop Williamson, from where his assignments have been, to which places he has been transferred, to what has been left in the fruit of his wake?
- Country of the United States (Seminary).
- Country of Argentina (Seminary).
- Country of England (muzzled is an attic).
Does anyone see anything in common to all of them?
These three countries have been the strongest in the Catholic Resistance against the liberal theology of the N-SSPX!
Indeed, thank you Bishop Williamson, for training some good priests who have been popping up all around the world in the battle of the Faith; and for teaching us faithful how to discern, how to love the Truth, how to Love God, and how to fight these "dogs of error" with the same tools Archbishop Lefebvre gave to us: the tried and true Encyclicals of the Popes, all of Catholic Tradition, and Fathers of the Church.
No compromise!
Martyrdom before treason!
As Archbishop Lefebvre won so many battles standing for the Truth Faith without compromise, you have been a True son of Archbishop Lefebvre to carry on the torch.
Deo Gratias...
I have been saying for years now, among friends who know lots of
SSPX priests and even work with them, that it is most telling that every
one of the SSPX priests that you find who have fire and zeal are priests
who were seminarians under the guidance (at least briefly) of Bishop
Williamson (and some +de Mallerais), and every one of the Society
priests who are now liberal or strongly leaning in the direction of
normalization with modernist Rome had their formation under +Fellay,
at least briefly.
All this could be verified, I'm sure, but whenever I bring it up, I have heard
no objections from those who know this topic. Rather they react as if it's
old hat, nothing new and not even worth discussing. I find that reaction a
bit odd.
When I say, "The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree," they say things like,
"Certainly not in this case," or "Yep," or "Unh-huh."
To be fair, I don't know any priest who trained under +de Galarreta.
-
Has anyone noticed the "Apostolate trail" of Bishop Williamson, from where his assignments have been, to which places he has been transferred, to what has been left in the fruit of his wake?
- Country of the United States (Seminary).
- Country of Argentina (Seminary).
- Country of England (muzzled is an attic).
Does anyone see anything in common to all of them?
These three countries have been the strongest in the Catholic Resistance against the liberal theology of the N-SSPX!
Indeed, thank you Bishop Williamson, for training some good priests who have been popping up all around the world in the battle of the Faith; and for teaching us faithful how to discern, how to love the Truth, how to Love God, and how to fight these "dogs of error" with the same tools Archbishop Lefebvre gave to us: the tried and true Encyclicals of the Popes, all of Catholic Tradition, and Fathers of the Church.
I have been saying for years now, among friends who know lots of
SSPX priests and even work with them, that it is most telling that every
one of the SSPX priests that you find who have fire and zeal are priests
who were seminarians under the guidance (at least briefly) of Bishop
Williamson (and some +de Mallerais), and every one of the Society
priests who are now liberal or strongly leaning in the direction of
normalization with modernist Rome had their formation under +Fellay,
at least briefly.
All this could be verified, I'm sure, but whenever I bring it up, I have heard
no objections from those who know this topic. Rather they react as if it's
old hat, nothing new and not even worth discussing. I find that reaction a
bit odd.
When I say, "The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree," they say things like,
"Certainly not in this case," or "Yep," or "Unh-huh."
To be fair, I don't know any priest who trained under +de Galarreta.
When you say "formation under +Fellay", I assume you mean in some kind of generic sense, because I am not aware of him having ever been a teacher at a seminary, or forming priests in that sense of the word. The only job I'm aware of his ever having was bursar, and then Superior General. I'm not aware of his ever being a prior, or even the pastor of a parish, except I assume when he was bursar, he likely was pastor at mission chapels. And he was only a priest for 6 years when he was consecrated bishop. If anyone is aware of this being inaccurate, I would be interested in the information.
-
Fr. Laisney said,
“The same accusations are sometimes made against the Protocol of May 5, 1988, which had been prepared by the future Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and signed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Would you accuse these two the way you accused Bishop Fellay?”
If Bishop Tissier de Mallerais helped draft the 1988 Protocol, as Fr. Laisney states, I would like to know what Bishop Tissier says about Bishop Fellay's 2012 Protocol?
Has there been any word from the "engine" these days? Or, is he still hiding under false obedience in not defending the attack on the Faith and to uphold the brethren?
-
Oh if we only had 100 more priests like Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko, Chazal and the other Resistance priests....the once menacing clique in Menzingen would be forced to step aside..
-
Fr. Laisney's only response should have been along the lines of: " Yes, your Excellency, we recognize the problem much the same way as you do and rest assured that we're organizing discretely to oust Bp Fellay, Fr. Pflueger and Fr. Neely ASAP..They will be re-assigned to different seminaries where they will mop and serve food for a year as penance...More details to follow. Yours in Christ, " Now THAT would have been an appropriate, albeit private, response..
-
Fr. Laisney has spoken the truth. Let us pray that Bishop Williamson (and his followers) will return to SSPX.
Looks like someone made the wrong turn on their way to AngelQueen.
....and looking through the "Newly Issued" neo-SSPX glasses. (Sit boy, now that's good dog!!!......Sit, Play, & Obey).
(http://www.nittanybeaglerescue.org/images/rose_colored_glasses.jpg)
For those who understand French, there is a conference here:
Abbé Rioult: Conférence sur « La crise dans la Fraternité » – Mai 2013 (http://www.lasapiniere.info/abbe-rioult-conference-sur-la-crise-dans-la-fraternite-mai-2013/)
Abbot Rioult: Conference on "The Crisis in the Brotherhood" - May 2013
At around the 5 minute mark, he pulls out a pair of rose-colored glasses and black glasses. :laugh1:
He explains why they are needed, quoting Bishop Fellay:
Extrait de la conférence donnée par Mgr Bernard Fellay aux sœurs dominicaines de Saint-Pré et aux fidèles, le 4 mai 2012.
A propos de la réponse que j'ai envoyée juste après Quasimodo, le 17 avril, à Rome, je ne sais pas encore ce qu'en pense la Congrégation de la Foi. Tout simplement, je ne sais pas. D'après ce que je peux savoir de sources privées, j'ai l'impression que cela convient. Chez nous, je pense qu'il faudra l'expliquer comme il faut, parce qu'il y a (dans ce docuмent) des expressions ou des déclarations qui sont tellement sur la ligne de crête que si vous êtes mal tourné ou selon que vous mettez des lunettes noires ou roses, vous les voyez comme ce-ci ou comme cela. Alors il faudra qu'on vous explique bien que cette lettre ne change absolument rien à notre position. Mais que, si on veut la lire de travers, on arrivera à la comprendre de travers.
Extract from Bp Fellay's conference to the Dominican teaching sisters of St Pré and faithful, 4th May 2012
Concerning the reply I sent to Rome just after Quasimodo, 17th April, I still don't know what the CDF thinks of it. I quite simply don't know. From what I gather from private sources, I have the impression it is acceptable. Amongst ourselves, I think it will have to explained properly because there are (in this docuмent) expressions or declarations which are so very much on a tightrope that if you are ill disposed or whether you are wearing black or pink tinted glasses, you will see it as this or as that. So we shall have to properly explain that this letter changes absolutely nothing of our position. But, if one wants to read it sideways, one will succeed in understanding it sideways.
-
For those who understand French, there is a conference here:
Abbé Rioult: Conférence sur « La crise dans la Fraternité » – Mai 2013 (http://www.lasapiniere.info/abbe-rioult-conference-sur-la-crise-dans-la-fraternite-mai-2013/)
Abbot Rioult: Conference on "The Crisis in the Brotherhood" - May 2013
Around 11 minutes, he is talking about how in June 2012, Bishop Fellay said Vatican II was a secondary problem - from that pathetic DICI interview (http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/) - and in 2013 he is saying it's the primary problem.
A canonical solution before a doctrinal solution?
DICI: Most of those who are opposed to the Society’s acceptance of a possible canonical recognition allege that the doctrinal discussions could have led to this acceptance only if they had concluded with a doctrinal solution, in other words, a “conversion” by Rome. Has your position on this point changed?
Bishop Fellay: It must be acknowledged that these discussions have allowed us to present clearly the various problems that we experience with regard to Vatican II. What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution. Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council. Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council; she is much larger. Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems. This new awareness [ :facepalm: ] can help us to understanding what is really happening: we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve. [Haven't you been doing that all along? :confused1: ]
So the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not. We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us. You may ask: why this change? We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us! Why? The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today. These problems must be addressed. We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems. This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly; you have to read between the lines to understand.
I was always surprised that pitiful interview never got more attention than it did.
-
For those who understand French, there is a conference here:
Abbé Rioult: Conférence sur « La crise dans la Fraternité » – Mai 2013 (http://www.lasapiniere.info/abbe-rioult-conference-sur-la-crise-dans-la-fraternite-mai-2013/)
Abbot Rioult: Conference on "The Crisis in the Brotherhood" - May 2013
Around 11 minutes, he is talking about how in June 2012, Bishop Fellay said Vatican II was a secondary problem - from that pathetic DICI interview (http://www.dici.org/en/news/interview-with-bishop-bernard-fellay-on-relations-with-rome/) - and in 2013 he is saying it's the primary problem.
A canonical solution before a doctrinal solution?
DICI: Most of those who are opposed to the Society’s acceptance of a possible canonical recognition allege that the doctrinal discussions could have led to this acceptance only if they had concluded with a doctrinal solution, in other words, a “conversion” by Rome. Has your position on this point changed?
Bishop Fellay: It must be acknowledged that these discussions have allowed us to present clearly the various problems that we experience with regard to Vatican II. What has changed is the fact that Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution. Today, in Rome, some people regard a different understanding of the Council as something that is not decisive for the future of the Church, since the Church is more than the Council. Indeed, the Church cannot be reduced to the Council; she is much larger. Therefore we must strive to resolve more far-reaching problems. This new awareness [ :facepalm: ] can help us to understanding what is really happening: we are called to help bring to others the treasure of Tradition that we have been able to preserve. [Haven't you been doing that all along? :confused1: ]
So the attitude of the official Church is what changed; we did not. We were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us. You may ask: why this change? We are still not in agreement doctrinally, and yet the pope wants to recognize us! Why? The answer is right in front of us: there are terribly important problems in the Church today. These problems must be addressed. We must set aside the secondary problems and deal with the major problems. This is the answer of one or another Roman prelate, although they will never say so openly; you have to read between the lines to understand.
I was always surprised that pitiful interview never got more attention than it did.
It would be most enlightening to hear why doctrine was a secondary concern in 2012, but a primary concern in 2013.
Perhaps we can't be 2012ers anymore?
Of course, the explanation is obvious:
If there is an opportunity for a practical accord, doctrine will take a back seat (as Bishop Fellay explained in his letter to bxvi);
If there is no perceived opportunity for a practical accord, doctrine will be permitted to take the front seat again, but only so long as Rome doesn't come knocking again, as Bishop fellay's letter also explains (ie., "I intend to remain committed to this goal...").
-
....and looking through the "Newly Issued" neo-SSPX glasses. (Sit boy, now that's good dog!!!......Sit, Play, & Obey).
(http://www.nittanybeaglerescue.org/images/rose_colored_glasses.jpg)
For those who understand French, there is a conference here:
Abbé Rioult: Conférence sur « La crise dans la Fraternité » – Mai 2013 (http://www.lasapiniere.info/abbe-rioult-conference-sur-la-crise-dans-la-fraternite-mai-2013/)
Abbot Rioult: Conference on "The Crisis in the Brotherhood" - May 2013
At around the 5 minute mark, he pulls out a pair of rose-colored glasses and black glasses.
He compares & contrasts various quotes from Bishop Fellay, and at around 40 minutes, he puts on first the rose glasses and then the black to read them. :laugh1:
Malheureusement dans le contexte actuel de la Fraternité, la nouvelle déclaration ne passera pas.
Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted.
-
In this Open answer to the Open Letter of Bishop Williamson to the members
of the SSPX Singapore, May 12, 2013, Fr. Laisney provides the one tidbit that
the Accordistas have latched onto, in answer to the claim that the
AFD has not been withdrawn by +Fellay. Here are the two sentences:
It is not true to say that the SSPX Headquarters has not retracted it (your French KE 303, but not in the English version: which one is the original?)
Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012 that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work.
Of all the tangled words in this too-long letter, it is remarkable to me that
someone who is not an SSPX chapel regular would know offhand about
these two sentences.
I just encountered this today. Here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24567&min=10#p4) is the post in which I describe the
conversation.
I had given this person my 3 x 5 index card with The Recusant's challenge
on it, front and back, as described in the post linked above. The person
reading the card very rarely assists at SSPX Mass sites. But some friends
of his have provided him with opinions, apparently, but he does not tell me
where he gets his information. He is the expert, you see. This is how they
have been brainwashed -- pretending that "the buck stops here."
He said to me that +Fellay had retracted the AFD. I asked to know when
that happened, and where I could go to read about it. He did not know the
date, but said that it was described in the response to a letter that +Williamson
had written, and the author was another priest, but he did not know the
name of the priest.
But that this sentence was the response that was a correct answer to my
assertion that +F had not retracted the AFD is significantly noteworthy to me:
"Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012
that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work."
Now, if this is true, where, except in this letter, is it that this was "said?" Was
it written? Or, was this a conversation that +F had with DiNoia? If the former,
I want to see the docuмent. If the latter, whose word are we relying on?
Fr. Laisney was told by someone, perhaps not +F, that this is what was said?
Did DiNoia say this in some interview from DICI or whatever? What is
the source? Where does Fr. Laisney come up with this? How can it be
verified? Was Fr. Laisney present to hear this statement made at the time?
He doesn't say!!
In any case, if it was spoken only, you know how those things go: it can
easily be UNSPOKEN with one phone call. No docuмent, no writing, no
existence, because "words fly." They are there one minute and gone the
next. Who was the witness? Where is the record? When was it reported?
What did DiNoia say about it? Nothing???? Most likely.
This seems to be a very important question. Because if it cannot be
verified, then that is the reply that we need to have on hand when we hear
this assertion, that +F has retracted this AFD.
I suspect it is A RUMOR, that Fr. Laisney is spreading, doing the very thing
that he scolds his opposition for doing, when they have in fact done no such
thing. And if this is the case, he needs to BE CALLED OUT ON THIS.
For reference, here is the text in my post linked above that mentions
this:
They said, "No, +Fellay has since taken this back." I asked them to
please tell me when he did so, and on what occasion and how do I
find a copy of that anywhere that I can read? They replied that it
was some other priest who was commenting on the letter of
+Williamson who said that this AFD "SHOULD" be taken back by
+Fellay. I replied, "Well some other priest saying he 'should' take it
back is not the same thing as +Fellay taking it back, is it?"
"The priest said that the wording was deficient, and it should be re-
worked, but for now, there is no agreement, so we should be over
this." [I guess it was Fr. Laisney saying "especially paragraph 7" and
all that, which is his comment on the +W letter - correct me if I'm
wrong.]
-
In this Open answer to the Open Letter of Bishop Williamson to the members
of the SSPX Singapore, May 12, 2013, Fr. Laisney provides the one tidbit that
the Accordistas have latched onto, in answer to the claim that the
AFD has not been withdrawn by +Fellay. Here are the two sentences:
It is not true to say that the SSPX Headquarters has not retracted it....
Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012 that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work.
... He said to me that +Fellay had retracted the AFD. I asked to know when
that happened, and where I could go to read about it. He did not know the
date, but said that it was described in the response to a letter that +Williamson
had written, and the author was another priest, but he did not know the
name of the priest.
... "Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012
that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work."
Now, if this is true, where, except in this letter, is it that this was "said?" Was
it written? Or, was this a conversation that +F had with DiNoia? If the former,
I want to see the docuмent. If the latter, whose word are we relying on? ...
Good question. In one of his longest (at least for which we have a transcript) talks in recent months, in Canada in late 2012, I don't remember +F mentioning this. You'd think if he retracted it, he would mention it. Here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22232&min=48&num=3), and also here (http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-conf-dec2012) is a copy of the transcript. I don't have time (or the stomach) to read the whole long thing again, but with a word seach for "retract", "rescind", "DiNoia", and "August", I did not find any reference. Why did he not mention such an important item?
-
In this Open answer to the Open Letter of Bishop Williamson to the members
of the SSPX Singapore, May 12, 2013, Fr. Laisney provides the one tidbit that
the Accordistas have latched onto, in answer to the claim that the
AFD has not been withdrawn by +Fellay. Here are the two sentences:
It is not true to say that the SSPX Headquarters has not retracted it....
Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012 that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work.
... He said to me that +Fellay had retracted the AFD. I asked to know when
that happened, and where I could go to read about it. He did not know the
date, but said that it was described in the response to a letter that +Williamson
had written, and the author was another priest, but he did not know the
name of the priest.
... "Explicitly Bishop Fellay said to Archbishop DiNoia on 28th August 2012
that it is retracted and can no longer serve as basis for work."
Now, if this is true, where, except in this letter, is it that this was "said?" Was
it written? Or, was this a conversation that +F had with DiNoia? If the former,
I want to see the docuмent. If the latter, whose word are we relying on? ...
Good question. In one of his longest (at least for which we have a transcript) talks in recent months, in Canada in late 2012, I don't remember +F mentioning this. You'd think if he retracted it, he would mention it. Here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22232&min=48&num=3), and also here (http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-conf-dec2012) is a copy of the transcript. I don't have time (or the stomach) to read the whole long thing again, but with a word seach for "retract", "rescind", "DiNoia", and "August", I did not find any reference. Why did he not mention such an important item?
Thanks PAT317, why not mention it, indeed.
As a woman, I should think you'd also like to know, "If he's keeping things
like this secret so sneakily, what ELSE has he been hiding from us?" In my
experience, anyway, that's how women think, and God bless them for it!
There has been a development. The Recusant has released a copy of the
Note Regarding the Doctrinal Declaration that +Fellay sent out in the Easter
Cor Unum to all the priests of the SSPX. Here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=24580&min=15#p3) is a copy of the
relevant (final) paragraph:
"After sending to Rome the texts of the General Chapter of last July, I met Mgr. Di Noia on 28th August 2012, and I informed him that I was withdrawing our April proposal, which could no longer serve as a basis from which to work. There remains the Doctrinal Preamble of 14th September, 2011, whose substance was taken up again on 13th June, 2012, and our double response: the letters of 30th November, 2011 and 12th January 2012 on the one hand; on the other, the 14th July 2012 Declaration of the General Chapter with the conditions required for any canonical recognition."
Therefore, the source is +Fellay, and he is describing A CONVERSATION, as
I suspected it was, not a verifiable written docuмent. And he provides no
witness. So it cannot be proved. Ask Msgr. de Noia if Msgr. Fellay ever said
this and be prepared for a di-Nial. . . . . . . . HAHAHAHAHA
Note: the Cor Unum is an INTERNAL LETTER and is meant only for the priests,
so this way, +Fellay can claim to have announced his meeting with Msgr. di Noia
and what he SAID then, and at the same time not mention it to the Faithful, who
are kept in the dark like mushrooms and fed B.S.