Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Fr Paul Aulagnier  (Read 3831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline denniswhiting

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Reputation: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
Fr Paul Aulagnier
« on: August 03, 2013, 05:21:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Christian Order, May 2012 has an article "Rome and the SSPX" which is worth reading. Also an Editorial mentioning Fr Paul Aulagnier, who was expelled from the SSPX in 2003 for promoting what Bp Fellay is now doing. Fr Aulagnier is described as "the first priest ordained for the Society and the priest closest to Archbishop Lefebvre." Even if we do not agree, I think it is important that we look more closely about what good traditional Catholics outside the Society are saying about us.

    Offline B from A

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 516
    • Reputation: +366/-81
    • Gender: Female
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #1 on: August 03, 2013, 05:48:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here's a letter on that topic:

    Quote
    December 2003

    Dear Faithful,

     Unfortunately I have sad news to end the year. Some of you may have seen it on the Internet. Indeed Father Aulagnier, one of Archbishop Lefebvre’s first and closest companion in the resistance, assistant to the Superior General, founding district superior of the French district had to be expelled from the Society. Last September we were saddened by the interview of Father Aulagnier to the Wanderer. At first I thought of replying earlier but then decided to wait to see how this affair would end. This interview, along with an extended article published in French on his website as well as in a French daily newspaper proved to be the last straw.

    For a long time now, since 1998, he had publicly and virulently opposed the Society’s stand regarding negotiations with Rome. As well he disobeyed our constitutions and repeatedly disobeyed Bishop Fellay’s explicit orders thus giving a bad example. He had also created a very difficult situation within the Society trying to sway its members in pursuing an accord with Rome thus trying to cause division and even rebellion against the legitimate authority. The problem was not that he had contrary opinions but that he was airing them in public and trying to undermine the Superior General and the Society. This state of affairs had lasted long enough. Because it was Father Aulagnier and the respect he commanded in the Society, Bishop Fellay and the General Council were very patient but sometimes, even patience can be a fault.

     After reading Father Aulagnier’s interview a few questions come to mind: why grant an interview to a newspaper, which is clearly against the SSPX? Are birds of a feather starting to flock together? Secondly Father Aulagnier seems to imply that those who disagree with his opinion and agree with the Superior General and the majority of SSPX members regarding the so-called reconciliation are “yes men”. This is not only insulting it is ludicrous. On the contrary as we will see, the SSPX’s present stand would seem more faithful to the Archbishop.

    Now I have not read Father Aulagnier’s French articles I’ve only read the interview in the Wanderer. According to this article, I think we can summarize Father Aulagnier’s arguments in favor of a “reconciliation” in the following: 1. The danger of schism. 2. His friendship with the “heroic” priests of Campos. 3. “The attitude of Rome is new.” 4. “Additionally I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages.” Let us consider these points.

    1. The danger of schism.

    Our resistance is not rebellion. It is the necessary attitude of Catholics who want to keep the faith when faced with prelates who attack, deny or threaten it. We do not want to become Protestants! We continue to believe in the divinity of Our Lord and His social Kingship, His Church. The fact that we keep the faith and we continue to speak with the Roman authorities shows there is no danger of schism because we still recognize their authority. Dispensations and other ecclesiastical permissions have been sought and received from the Roman authorities. What is in question is not their authority but whether we can trust them or not. It is not just a matter of having a majority in a Roman commission. It is a matter of can we put ourselves under them and trust them to protect our Faith? Unfortunately the present Roman authorities have proven over and over they cannot be trusted, that they have not changed as we will point out later on.

    The solution to this crisis will come from Rome when the Roman authorities come back to the integrity of the Faith. But until then we do well to continue our resistance. How long this will
     take is not our problem but God’s. But we cannot for the sake of a fake unity join those who promote errors, who reduce the Church to a human institution, or simply one religion among others thus destroying it. So we continue Tradition and continue to denounce those who reject it in the name of a new conciliar church. As Archbishop Lefebvre said: by cutting themselves off from the previous popes, the modern Roman authorities are the ones who are schismatic. When Rome returns to the Faith the only matter for discussion will be who will become a bishop and who will he replace?

    2. His friendship with the “heroic” priests of Campos.

     Friendship is indeed a noble sentiment. But does it come before one’s duty or before one’s Faith. Further, I simply ask the question: Does it take heroic virtue to capitulate in the fight for Tradition in order to obtain recognition? Did it take heroic virtue to renounce their spiritual father, Bishop de Castro Mayer, to abandon and turn against their former comrades in arms? I don’t think so. Is Father Aulagnier also on the verge of choosing between the pre-Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Archbishop Lefebvre? As if there was a difference.

    3. The attitude of Rome is new

     This is the most unbelievable reason of all. Where has Father Aulagnier been for the past 5 years? Have the modern Roman authorities really changed? Has he forgotten what they have done to the Fraternity of St Peter, which is their own creation? Has he forgotten about the two sacrilegious prayer meetings of Assisi? The last one took place a week after they granted recognition to the “heroic” priests of Campos who did not say a word about it. By the way, hasn’t he noticed how quiet the “heroic” priests of Campos are since they signed their agreement? Doesn’t he know that on May 24 2003, at the same time as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos was offering the traditional Mass in St Mary Major, the Pope was giving the Catholic church of Saints Vincent and Anastasius, which contains the embalmed hearts of 22 popes, to the Bulgarian Orthodox to share? Some change!

     He seems to have forgotten what Archbishop Lefebvre knew well and denounced: there are two Romes: Catholic Rome and the neo-modernist Rome. As did Archbishop Lefebvre, we adhere with our whole heart to Catholic Rome but reject the neo-modernist Rome. Catholic Rome has been infiltrated and is occupied by Modernists. This is a fact. The proclamation by Cardinal Castrillon that “The old Roman rite thus conserves in the Church its right of citizenship” is nice but changes nothing. It is perfectly in line with the neo-modernist ecumenism of the neo-modernist Romans, which is: Why not accept also the Mass of St Pius V? We accept everything else.

    But we are not looking for acceptance. We will not be happy if at the next Assisi prayer meeting Bishop Fellay stands closer to the Pope than the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama shouldn’t even be there. We hope that at the next prayer meeting at Assisi to pray for peace the Pope will be surrounded by all the Catholic bishops consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is where the true peace is. Encouraging prayers to false gods will not bring peace.

     So the words of Archbishop Lefebvre to John Paul II in 1988 are still valid today: “The time for cooperation has not yet come.” Absolutely nothing has changed. The present Roman authorities continue to be faithful to their principles of the new theology, new ecclesiology new evangelization exemplified by the spirit of Vatican II and Assisi in which they want to draw us and of which we want no part.

     The SSPX also continues faithful to the Catholic principles transmitted by the Archbishop. “We do not view reconciliation in the same way. Cardinal Ratzinger see it in the sense of bringing us to Vatican II. We see it as the return of Rome to Tradition. We cannot come together. It is a dialogue between the deaf.” For the renewal of the dialogue with Rome “I will raise the question on the doctrinal level: ‘Are you in agreement with the great encyclicals of all the previous popes? Are you in agreement with Quanta cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei, Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas primas of Pius XI, Humani generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these popes and their teaching? Do you still accept the anti-modernist oath? Are you in favor of the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors it is useless to talk. As long as you refuse to reform the council in light of the doctrine of these popes who preceded you there is no dialogue possible. It is useless… The opposition between us is not a small thing. It is not sufficient for then to tell us: you can say the old Mass… No the opposition between is not there, it is the doctrine.” 1

    4. “I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages”.

    In my opinion, I think we might see here the real reason for Father Aulagnier’s change. The fight is dragging on. He has been at the center of this fight for over 30 years. Maybe he is tired of the fight! But this is not the first time that a conflict over the faith has lasted for ages. The Arian crisis lasted over 70 years, the papal exile in Avignon 68 years, the great Schism 39 years. Is this a reason to abandon the fight to come to some arrangement? It’s a good thing St Athanasius didn’t get tired of being exiled, threatened, falsely accused, excommunicated etc. He wouldn’t be St Athanasius.

     He seems to have forgotten that: “In other times heretics and schismatics left the Church. Today, as St Pius X warned us, they remain to make her evolve from within and to seduce, if it were possible all or part of the flock of the holy bishop… But one does not deal with this kind of enemy all the more so that he is cunning. One does not negotiate with him a false and separate peace. One fights him till the end, strong in his right – Deus vult - God wills it – reminding him of the truths he attacks in vain… Rome knows it made an error, a grave error: the excommunication (against Mgr Lefebvre). How to repair the error? Time will tell. In any case not without a frank return of the hierarchy to the total and integral confession of the catholic faith whole and entire. The day will come when Rome by its conversion will find our serenity.2 Seems like has lost his serenity.

     Dear faithful do not lose your serenity, stand calm firm in the unchanging faith of all times. Do not abandon the fight. Sure it is dragging out. But we will win.

    As usual we thank you for your continued support and assure you of our daily prayers for you and yours especially during the holy season of Advent and Christmastide. May you all have a happy and blessed Christmas and may the newborn Lord and His holy Mother and St Joseph reward and bless you in the coming year.

     With my blessing
     Father Jean Violette

     

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     1. Fideliter #66 November-December 1988
    2. Father Paul Aulagnier Fideliter #65 September-October 1988


    Offline Unbrandable

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +192/-40
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #2 on: August 03, 2013, 01:04:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They condemn themselves by their own words!

    Offline Sienna629

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 345
    • Reputation: +363/-5
    • Gender: Female
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #3 on: August 03, 2013, 01:26:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from:  B from A
    Here's a letter on that topic:

    Quote
    December 2003

    Dear Faithful,

     Unfortunately I have sad news to end the year. Some of you may have seen it on the Internet. Indeed Father Aulagnier, one of Archbishop Lefebvre’s first and closest companion in the resistance, assistant to the Superior General, founding district superior of the French district had to be expelled from the Society. Last September we were saddened by the interview of Father Aulagnier to the Wanderer. At first I thought of replying earlier but then decided to wait to see how this affair would end. This interview, along with an extended article published in French on his website as well as in a French daily newspaper proved to be the last straw.

    For a long time now, since 1998, he had publicly and virulently opposed the Society’s stand regarding negotiations with Rome. As well he disobeyed our constitutions and repeatedly disobeyed Bishop Fellay’s explicit orders thus giving a bad example. He had also created a very difficult situation within the Society trying to sway its members in pursuing an accord with Rome thus trying to cause division and even rebellion against the legitimate authority. The problem was not that he had contrary opinions but that he was airing them in public and trying to undermine the Superior General and the Society. This state of affairs had lasted long enough. Because it was Father Aulagnier and the respect he commanded in the Society, Bishop Fellay and the General Council were very patient but sometimes, even patience can be a fault.

     After reading Father Aulagnier’s interview a few questions come to mind: why grant an interview to a newspaper, which is clearly against the SSPX? Are birds of a feather starting to flock together? Secondly Father Aulagnier seems to imply that those who disagree with his opinion and agree with the Superior General and the majority of SSPX members regarding the so-called reconciliation are “yes men”. This is not only insulting it is ludicrous. On the contrary as we will see, the SSPX’s present stand would seem more faithful to the Archbishop.

    Now I have not read Father Aulagnier’s French articles I’ve only read the interview in the Wanderer. According to this article, I think we can summarize Father Aulagnier’s arguments in favor of a “reconciliation” in the following: 1. The danger of schism. 2. His friendship with the “heroic” priests of Campos. 3. “The attitude of Rome is new.” 4. “Additionally I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages.” Let us consider these points.

    1. The danger of schism.

    Our resistance is not rebellion. It is the necessary attitude of Catholics who want to keep the faith when faced with prelates who attack, deny or threaten it. We do not want to become Protestants! We continue to believe in the divinity of Our Lord and His social Kingship, His Church. The fact that we keep the faith and we continue to speak with the Roman authorities shows there is no danger of schism because we still recognize their authority. Dispensations and other ecclesiastical permissions have been sought and received from the Roman authorities. What is in question is not their authority but whether we can trust them or not. It is not just a matter of having a majority in a Roman commission. It is a matter of can we put ourselves under them and trust them to protect our Faith? Unfortunately the present Roman authorities have proven over and over they cannot be trusted, that they have not changed as we will point out later on.

    The solution to this crisis will come from Rome when the Roman authorities come back to the integrity of the Faith. But until then we do well to continue our resistance. How long this will
     take is not our problem but God’s. But we cannot for the sake of a fake unity join those who promote errors, who reduce the Church to a human institution, or simply one religion among others thus destroying it. So we continue Tradition and continue to denounce those who reject it in the name of a new conciliar church. As Archbishop Lefebvre said: by cutting themselves off from the previous popes, the modern Roman authorities are the ones who are schismatic. When Rome returns to the Faith the only matter for discussion will be who will become a bishop and who will he replace?

    2. His friendship with the “heroic” priests of Campos.

     Friendship is indeed a noble sentiment. But does it come before one’s duty or before one’s Faith. Further, I simply ask the question: Does it take heroic virtue to capitulate in the fight for Tradition in order to obtain recognition? Did it take heroic virtue to renounce their spiritual father, Bishop de Castro Mayer, to abandon and turn against their former comrades in arms? I don’t think so. Is Father Aulagnier also on the verge of choosing between the pre-Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Archbishop Lefebvre? As if there was a difference.

    3. The attitude of Rome is new

     This is the most unbelievable reason of all. Where has Father Aulagnier been for the past 5 years? Have the modern Roman authorities really changed? Has he forgotten what they have done to the Fraternity of St Peter, which is their own creation? Has he forgotten about the two sacrilegious prayer meetings of Assisi? The last one took place a week after they granted recognition to the “heroic” priests of Campos who did not say a word about it. By the way, hasn’t he noticed how quiet the “heroic” priests of Campos are since they signed their agreement? Doesn’t he know that on May 24 2003, at the same time as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos was offering the traditional Mass in St Mary Major, the Pope was giving the Catholic church of Saints Vincent and Anastasius, which contains the embalmed hearts of 22 popes, to the Bulgarian Orthodox to share? Some change!

     He seems to have forgotten what Archbishop Lefebvre knew well and denounced: there are two Romes: Catholic Rome and the neo-modernist Rome. As did Archbishop Lefebvre, we adhere with our whole heart to Catholic Rome but reject the neo-modernist Rome. Catholic Rome has been infiltrated and is occupied by Modernists. This is a fact. The proclamation by Cardinal Castrillon that “The old Roman rite thus conserves in the Church its right of citizenship” is nice but changes nothing. It is perfectly in line with the neo-modernist ecumenism of the neo-modernist Romans, which is: Why not accept also the Mass of St Pius V? We accept everything else.

    But we are not looking for acceptance. We will not be happy if at the next Assisi prayer meeting Bishop Fellay stands closer to the Pope than the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama shouldn’t even be there. We hope that at the next prayer meeting at Assisi to pray for peace the Pope will be surrounded by all the Catholic bishops consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is where the true peace is. Encouraging prayers to false gods will not bring peace.

     So the words of Archbishop Lefebvre to John Paul II in 1988 are still valid today: “The time for cooperation has not yet come.” Absolutely nothing has changed. The present Roman authorities continue to be faithful to their principles of the new theology, new ecclesiology new evangelization exemplified by the spirit of Vatican II and Assisi in which they want to draw us and of which we want no part.

     The SSPX also continues faithful to the Catholic principles transmitted by the Archbishop. “We do not view reconciliation in the same way. Cardinal Ratzinger see it in the sense of bringing us to Vatican II. We see it as the return of Rome to Tradition. We cannot come together. It is a dialogue between the deaf.” For the renewal of the dialogue with Rome “I will raise the question on the doctrinal level: ‘Are you in agreement with the great encyclicals of all the previous popes? Are you in agreement with Quanta cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei, Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas primas of Pius XI, Humani generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these popes and their teaching? Do you still accept the anti-modernist oath? Are you in favor of the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors it is useless to talk. As long as you refuse to reform the council in light of the doctrine of these popes who preceded you there is no dialogue possible. It is useless… The opposition between us is not a small thing. It is not sufficient for then to tell us: you can say the old Mass… No the opposition between is not there, it is the doctrine.” 1

    4. “I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages”.

    In my opinion, I think we might see here the real reason for Father Aulagnier’s change. The fight is dragging on. He has been at the center of this fight for over 30 years. Maybe he is tired of the fight! But this is not the first time that a conflict over the faith has lasted for ages. The Arian crisis lasted over 70 years, the papal exile in Avignon 68 years, the great Schism 39 years. Is this a reason to abandon the fight to come to some arrangement? It’s a good thing St Athanasius didn’t get tired of being exiled, threatened, falsely accused, excommunicated etc. He wouldn’t be St Athanasius.

     He seems to have forgotten that: “In other times heretics and schismatics left the Church. Today, as St Pius X warned us, they remain to make her evolve from within and to seduce, if it were possible all or part of the flock of the holy bishop… But one does not deal with this kind of enemy all the more so that he is cunning. One does not negotiate with him a false and separate peace. One fights him till the end, strong in his right – Deus vult - God wills it – reminding him of the truths he attacks in vain… Rome knows it made an error, a grave error: the excommunication (against Mgr Lefebvre). How to repair the error? Time will tell. In any case not without a frank return of the hierarchy to the total and integral confession of the catholic faith whole and entire. The day will come when Rome by its conversion will find our serenity.2 Seems like has lost his serenity.

     Dear faithful do not lose your serenity, stand calm firm in the unchanging faith of all times. Do not abandon the fight. Sure it is dragging out. But we will win.

    As usual we thank you for your continued support and assure you of our daily prayers for you and yours especially during the holy season of Advent and Christmastide. May you all have a happy and blessed Christmas and may the newborn Lord and His holy Mother and St Joseph reward and bless you in the coming year.

     With my blessing
     Father Jean Violette

     

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     1. Fideliter #66 November-December 1988
    2. Father Paul Aulagnier Fideliter #65 September-October 1988


    This reads just as well today as it did the day it was written! Fr. Violette should read it again to remind himself that that was the right stance then, and still is.

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2659/-3
    • Gender: Female
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #4 on: August 03, 2013, 01:41:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Well written. Just change the names and this could be a resistance letter." --Mr. PFT
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,


    Offline Unbrandable

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +192/-40
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #5 on: August 21, 2013, 01:15:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In his sermon of August 4th, 2013, Father Girouard comments on Father Violette's letter.

    Here is the link below:


    http://www.sacrificium.org/multimedia/video/fr-jean-violette-condemns-bishop-fellay-4-august-2013

    Offline brianhope

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 45
    • Reputation: +46/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #6 on: August 22, 2013, 02:26:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting trivia: Fr. Paul Aulagnier is Fr. Chazal's uncle.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18152
    • Reputation: +8245/-632
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #7 on: August 22, 2013, 06:48:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    This letter is excellent documentation.  

    I'm putting a link to this thread in the Resistance Writings thread.

    I don't know if the letter itself belongs there, but certainly a link
    to see it and a brief summary would be helpful.  

    This letter goes to show how utterly indefensible the Accordista
    position is.  

    I have a friend who is an avid Accordista.  I don't think it's a good
    idea to "out" her because of her personal condition etc., but in
    any event, I told her that a certain priest called me out after
    Mass to tell me that I shouldn't sing a recessional hymn unless
    he gives me permission.  He said that the faithful need to have
    a consistent experience, and it's for the common good.  

    Mind you, this is a chapel where you never know, as in NEVER,
    from one week to the next if there will be ANY daily Mass.
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes, sometimes.  How
    "consistent" is that?  Anyway, I said, "But this is within the
    Octave of the Assumption, and 'Hail, Holy Queen Enthroned
    Above' is really appropriate for..."  He cut me off:  "Pope Pius
    XII suppressed all the octaves except for Christmas, Easter
    and Pentecost."  

    I couldn't help but notice the irony, the pope who dogmatically
    defined the Assumption, 6 years later turned around and
    ripped out the Octave of the Assumption??  Something is really
    wrong there.  

    It sounds almost like +Fellay was in charge!!   HAHAHAHAHAHA

    The point of this is, that when I told my friend the Accordista
    about this experience, she said, "It's his chapel, and he can do
    what he wants."  

    So that's rather telling.  It's +Fellay's Society and he can do what
    he wants, apparently.  I'm sure she would not disagree.  

    What's high, right and proper one year (this letter, for example)
    suddenly becomes grounds for expulsion just a few years later.
    Why?  Because The Great One said so, that's why.  It's his
    Church, and he can do what he wants.  



    This actually goes back to Vat.II, where the UNCLEAN SPIRIT made
    way for the likes of LG 25 where it has been taken to say that the
    Faith is defined (pretty much) by whatever emerges from the
    mouth of the local bishop.  


    Quote from: Lumen Gentium 25

    In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of
    Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it
    with a religious assent.










    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2659/-3
    • Gender: Female
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #8 on: August 22, 2013, 06:56:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: brianhope
    Interesting trivia: Fr. Paul Aulagnier is Fr. Chazal's uncle.


     :stare: Really? That's interesting...
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18152
    • Reputation: +8245/-632
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #9 on: August 22, 2013, 11:09:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    The letter from Fr. Violette concerning Fr. Paul Aulagneir isn't
    literally a Resistance Letter, but it reads just like one, provided
    the names are changed.  

    You can now find the linked Resistance Writings post here:

    Thread

    It consists of these following posts but does not have the sermon
    from Fr. Girouard, below:

    Quote from: denniswhiting
    Christian Order, May 2012 has an article "Rome and the SSPX" which is worth reading. Also an Editorial mentioning Fr Paul Aulagnier, who was expelled from the SSPX in 2003 for promoting what Bp Fellay is now doing. Fr Aulagnier is described as "the first priest ordained for the Society and the priest closest to Archbishop Lefebvre." Even if we do not agree, I think it is important that we look more closely about what good traditional Catholics outside the Society are saying about us.




    Quote from: Unbrandable
    They condemn themselves by their own words!



    Quote from: parentsfortruth
    "Well written. Just change the names and this could be a resistance letter." --Mr. PFT




    Quote from: Unbrandable
    In his sermon of August 4th, 2013, Father Girouard comments on Father Violette's letter.

    Here is the link below:


    http://www.sacrificium.org/multimedia/video/fr-jean-violette-condemns-bishop-fellay-4-august-2013




    Below is the sermon transcript from Fr. Girouard.  As usual, it is an
    excellent sermon, even if you don't speak French (like me!)  The words of
    Fr. Girouard are in lower case and he reads the letter itself which is in ALL CAPS:




    Fr. Jean Violette Condemns Bishop Fellay!

    Fr. Girouard’s Sermon of August 4th, 2013

    Aldergrove, BC, Canada

     

    The sermon of today is a reading and commentary of a letter someone sent me yesterday. They found it on CathInfo.com but you can also find it on the Canadian SSPX District website. If you go on the Canadian website and you go to the "Letters from the District Superiors", there is a category that says, “Letters of the former District Superiors of Canada”, and then you have “Father Violette” and then you have different letters and there is one from Father Violette dated December 2003. And that deals with Father Paul Aulagnier, who was being expelled in the fall of 2003 by Bishop Fellay.

     

    Father Aulagnier was expelled from the Society because he was in favor of an agreement with Rome. So for those who think that the Society has not changed, I will read that letter and you will realize that it's almost as if I would have written it, because Father Violette is using the arguments of the Resistance against an agreement with Rome. And, at the time, there was the same kind of announcement from Bishop Fellay in the Cor Unum. Okay, I was not able, because of lack of time, to get that copy, but you can be sure that what Father Violette says is an expression of the official line of the Society, as being a District Superior. I will read it to you and you will see with amazement that basically we can use that letter in the Resistance now against Bishop Fellay. There has been a complete turnaround, and Father Violette himself now has completely turned around. Father Violette, (actually Prior of Kansas City), is fully with Bishop Fellay. I think I will send him his letter and say, "Remember what you wrote 10 years ago".

     

    So that is a letter to all the Faithful of Canada to warn them against a reconciliation with Rome. It's pretty strong, you will see: (N.B. Fr. Violette’s letter is in capitals, Fr. Girouard’s comments are between parenthesis).

     

    DEAR FAITHFUL, UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE SAD NEWS TO END THE YEAR. SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT ON THE INTERNET. (You will see, ah! ah! that... ah! it is still what they say about us now). INDEED FATHER AULAGNIER, ONE OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE'S FIRST AND CLOSEST COMPANION IN THE RESISTANCE, (in the Resistance!) ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERIOR GENERAL, FOUNDING DISTRICT SUPERIOR OF THE FRENCH DISTRICT, HAD TO BE EXPELLED FROM THE SOCIETY. LAST SEPTEMBER WE WERE SADDENED BY THE INTERVIEW OF FATHER AULAGNIER TO THE WANDERER. (The Wanderer is a 'conservative' newspaper in the United States. It was founded by the grand-father of Michael Matt - who now has a 'traditional' paper which is The Remnant, and which is not much more traditional than the Wanderer.) AT FIRST I THOUGHT OF REPLYING EARLIER BUT THEN DECIDED TO WAIT TO SEE HOW THIS AFFAIR WOULD END. THIS INTERVIEW, ALONG WITH AN EXTENDED ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN FRENCH ON HIS WEBSITE, AS WELL AS IN A FRENCH DAILY NEWSPAPER PROVED TO BE THE LAST STRAW. (So that reminds me of what they said against Bishop Williamson: he had his website, then his blog, and he held, publicly, opinions contrary to the General Superior, and therefore we had to get rid of him.)

     

    FOR A LONG TIME NOW, SINCE 1998, HE HAD PUBLICLY AND VIRULENTLY OPPOSED THE SOCIETY'S STAND REGARDING

    NEGOTIATIONS WITH ROME. (This could be applied... It's the same sentence that they say to Bishop Williamson but for the other reason.) AS WELL HE DISOBEYED OUR CONSTITUTIONS AND REPEATEDLY DISOBEYED BISHOP FELLAY'S

    EXPLICIT ORDERS THUS GIVING A BAD EXAMPLE. (Exactly what they said about Bishop Williamson!) HE HAD ALSO CREATED A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION WITHIN THE SOCIETY TRYING TO SWAY ITS MEMBERS (Same thing about Bishop Williamson.) TO SWAY ITS MEMBERS IN PURSUING AN ACCORD WITH ROME (So they blamed Fr. Aulagnier for having advocated an accord with Rome, and for trying to convince other members in the Society.) THUS TRYING TO CAUSE DIVISION AND EVEN REBELLION AGAINST THE LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY. (Exactly what they said about Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer, myself, and all that. Exactly the same!) THE PROBLEM WAS NOT THAT HE HAD CONTRARY OPINIONS, BUT THAT HE WAS AIRING THEM IN PUBLIC (Like they told me, like they told Bishop Williamson: You cannot talk about your ideas. You have to remain silent.) AND TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE SUPERIOR GENERAL AND THE SOCIETY. THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS HAS LASTED LONG ENOUGH. BECAUSE IT WAS FATHER AULAGNIER AND THE RESPECT HE COMMANDED IN THE SOCIETY, BISHOP FELLAY AND THE GENERAL COUNCIL WERE VERY PATIENT, BUT SOMETIMES, PATIENCE CAN BE A FAULT. (Exactly what they said about Bishop Williamson.)

     

    AFTER READING FATHER AULAGNIER'S INTERVIEW A FEW QUESTIONS COME TO MIND: WHY GRANT AN INTERVIEW TO A NEWSPAPER, WHICH IS CLEARLY AGAINST THE SSPX? ARE BIRDS OF A FEATHER STARTING TO FLOCK TOGETHER?

    SECONDLY, FATHER AULAGNIER SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIS OPINION AND AGREE WITH THE SUPERIOR GENERAL AND THE MAJORITY OF SSPX MEMBERS REGARDING THE SO-CALLED RECONCILIATION ARE “YES MEN”. THIS IS NOT ONLY INSULTING IT IS LUDICROUS. ON THE CONTRARY, AS WE WILL SEE, THE SSPX'S PRESENT STAND

    WOULD SEEM MORE FAITHFUL TO THE ARCHBISHOP. (In those days, the stand was against negotiation / reconciliation. And he says that this stand against it, is more faithful to the Archbishop. This is exactly what we have all been saying for so long!)

     

    NOW I HAVE NOT READ FATHER AULAGNIER'S FRENCH ARTICLES I'VE ONLY READ THE INTERVIEW IN THE WANDERER.

    ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE, I THINK WE CAN SUMMARIZE FATHER AULAGNIER'S ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF A "RECONCILIATION" IN THE FOLLOWING: (And now you will see that the arguments of Father Aulagnier which are now condemned, which at that time, 10 years ago, were condemned by the SSPX and Father Violette, are the same arguments now used by Bishop Fellay. So if this is not a change, I wonder what it is! Summary of the arguments:)

    1. THE DANGER OF SCHISM. (This was the big argument of Bishop Fellay against Bishop Williamson and the two other bishops last year.) 2. HIS FRIENDSHIP WITH THE "HEROIC" PRIESTS OF CAMPOS. (Well, that's different.) 3. THE ATTITUDE OF ROME IS NEW. ("The attitude of Rome has changed, it is more traditional now." Exactly what we hear now from Bishop Fellay!) 4. ADDITIONALLY I THINK THAT THERE IS DANGER IN SEEING THIS CONFLICT LAST FOR AGES. (That's one of their arguments too: "We cannot wait for the conversion of Rome. It will never happen. We have to be realistic!" That's what they tell us: "So we have to deal with them now, and later, once we are back in the structure, we can change them, but we should not expect the change before to go." This is exactly what Father Aulagnier says. Now, Fr. Violette will be answering Fr. Aulagnier’s four arguments in favour of a “reconciliation” with Modernist Rome...)

     

    1. THE DANGER OF SCHISM:

    OUR RESISTANCE IS NOT REBELLION. (That is exactly what we say too, now, the Resistance.) IT IS THE NECESSARY ATTITUDE OF CATHOLICS WHO WANT TO KEEP THE FAITH WHEN FACED WITH PRELATES WHO ATTACK, DENY OR THREATEN IT. WE DO NOT WANT TO BECOME PROTESTANTS! WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD AND HIS SOCIAL KINGSHIP, HIS CHURCH. THE FACT THAT WE KEEP THE FAITH AND WE CONTINUE TO SPEAK WITH THE ROMAN AUTHORITIES SHOWS THERE IS NO DANGER OF SCHISM BECAUSE WE STILL RECOGNIZE THEIR AUTHORITY.

    (We do recognize their authority.) DISPENSATIONS AND OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL PERMISSIONS HAVE BEEN SOUGHT AND RECEIVED FROM THE ROMAN AUTHORITIES. WHAT IS IN QUESTION IS NOT THEIR AUTHORITY, BUT WHETHER WE CAN TRUST THEM OR NOT. (We know they are the authority, but we cannot trust them.) IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF HAVING A MAJORITY IN A ROMAN COMMISSION. IT IS A MATTER OF CAN WE PUT OURSELVES UNDER THEM?

    (Can we put ourselves under them? We say 'no' and at the time they said 'no' as well!) CAN WE TRUST THEM TO PROTECT OUR FAITH? UNFORTUNATELY, THE PRESENT ROMAN AUTHORITIES HAVE PROVEN OVER AND OVER THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED, AND THAT THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED, AS WE WILL POINT OUT LATER ON. (We should send that letter to Bishop Fellay!)

    THE SOLUTION TO THIS CRISIS WILL COME FROM ROME WHEN THE ROMAN AUTHORITIES COME BACK TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAITH. (When they come back, not when we go back to them! When THEY come back!) BUT UNTIL THEN WE DO WELL TO CONTINUE OUR RESISTANCE. HOW LONG THIS WILL LAST IS NOT OUR PROBLEM BUT GOD'S.

    BUT WE CANNOT FOR THE SAKE OF A FAKE UNITY JOIN THOSE WHO PROMOTE ERRORS, (We cannot join them.) AND THOSE WHO REDUCE THE CHURCH TO A HUMAN INSTITUTION, OR SIMPLY ONE RELIGION AMONG OTHERS, THUS DESTROYING IT. SO WE CONTINUE TRADITION AND CONTINUE TO DENOUNCE THOSE WHO REJECT IT IN THE NAME OF A NEW CONCILIAR CHURCH. (Now, in the Neo-SSPX, they say there is no such thing as a Conciliar Church. Go to DICI. It is only a "tendency". It's not really a Conciliar Church.) AS ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE SAID: “BY CUTTING THEMSELVES OFF FROM THE PREVIOUS POPES, THE MODERN ROMAN AUTHORITIES ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SCHISMATIC.” (It is exactly what I told you last year, and here we have Father Violette 10 years ago.) WHEN ROME RETURNS TO THE FAITH THE ONLY MATTER FOR DISCUSSION WILL BE WHO WILL BECOME A BISHOP AND WHO WILL HE REPLACE? (Those are details. When Rome goes back to the Faith there will be no problem. When they go back to the true Catholic Church, there will be no problem. That always was our position. Conversion of Rome first! That's what it means.)

     

    2. THE FRIENDSHIP OF FATHER AULAGNIER WITH THE "HEROIC" PRIESTS OF CAMPOS:

    FRIENDSHIP IS INDEED A NOBLE SENTIMENT. BUT DOES IT COME BEFORE ONE'S DUTY OR BEFORE ONE'S FAITH? (The duty has to be first, Faith has to be first! We may lose friends, we may lose family members, but we have to follow our conscience; we want to save our souls.) DOES IT TAKE HEROIC VIRTUE TO CAPITULATE IN THE FIGHT FOR TRADITION, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN RECOGNITION? (I repeat:) DOES IT TAKE HEROIC VIRTUE TO CAPITULATE IN THE FIGHT FOR TRADITION, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN RECONCILIATION? (This is the question we have to ask Bishop Fellay, NOW!) DID IT TAKE HEROIC VIRTUE TO RENOUNCE THEIR SPIRITUAL FATHER, BISHOP DE CASTRO MAYER, AND TO ABANDON AND TURN AGAINST THEIR FORMER COMRADES IN ARMS? I DON'T THINK SO. IS FATHER AULAGNIER ALSO ON THE VERGE OF CHOOSING BETWEEN THE PRE-VATICAN II AND THE POST-VATICAN II ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE? AS IF THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE.

     

    3. THE ATTITUDE OF ROME IS NEW!

    (This is what they tell us now: "Rome has changed.") THIS IS THE MOST UNBELIEVABLE REASON OF ALL, (my emphasis here) WHERE HAS FATHER AULAGNIER BEEN FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS? HAVE THE MODERN ROMAN AUTHORITIES REALLY CHANGED? HAS HE FORGOTTEN WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO THE FRATERNITY OF ST. PETER, WHICH IS THEIR OWN CREATION? HAS HE FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE TWO SACRILEGIOUS PRAYER MEETINGS IN ASSISI? (Ah! Ah! We say the same thing to Bishop Fellay now, it's incredible!) THE LAST ONE TOOK PLACE A WEEK AFTER THEY GRANTED RECOGNITION TO THE 'HEROIC' PRIESTS OF CAMPOS, WHO DID NOT SAY A WORD AGAINST IT. (What did the Neo-SSPX say against Assisi III? Go back and look - - nothing!) BY THE WAY HASN'T HE NOTICED HOW QUIET THE 'HEROIC' PRIESTS OF CAMPOS ARE, SINCE THEY SIGNED THEIR AGREEMENT? (Ah! Ah!) DOESN'T HE KNOW THAT ON MAY 24, 2003, AT THE SAME TIME AS CARDINAL CASTRILLON HOYOS WAS OFFERING THE TRADITIONAL MASS IN ST. MARY MAJOR, THE POPE WAS GIVING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF SAINTS VINCENT AND ANASTASIUS, WHICH CONTAINS THE EMBALMED HEARTS OF 22 POPES, TO THE BULGARIAN ORTHODOX TO SHARE? SOME CHANGE! (So Cardinal Hoyos says the Latin Mass in Rome, and on the same day the Pope gives a traditional church to the orthodox schismatics, to share with Roman Catholics.)


    HE SEEMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE KNEW WELL AND DENOUNCED: THERE ARE TWO ROMES: CATHOLIC ROME AND THE NEO-MODERNIST ROME. AS DID ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE, WE ADHERE WITH OUR WHOLE HEART TO CATHOLIC ROME, BUT WE REJECT THE NEO-MODERNIST ROME. CATHOLIC ROME HAS BEEN INFILTRATED AND IS OCCUPIED BY MODERNISTS. THIS IS A FACT. THE PROCLAMATION BY CARDINAL HOYOS THAT

    "THE OLD ROMAN RITE THUS CONSERVES IN THE CHURCH ITS RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP" IS NICE BUT CHANGES NOTHING.

    (Same thing we say of the 2007 Motu Propio - It is nice , in a way, but changes nothing... and it's not truly nice, the Motu Propio, but anyway...) IT IS PERFECTLY IN LINE WITH THE NEO-MODERNIST ECUMENISM OF THE NEO-MODERNIST ROMANS, WHICH IS: WHY NOT ACCEPT THE MASS OF ST. PIUS V? WE ACCEPT EVERYTHING ELSE. (That's the real modernist thinking. We accept the Buddhist, we accept the Moslem. We might accept as well the Latin mass. But that doesn't change the fact that they are remaining modernists!)


    BUT WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR ACCEPTANCE. WE WILL NOT BE HAPPY IF AT THE NEXT ASSISI PRAYER MEETING BISHOP FELLAY STANDS CLOSER TO THE POPE THAN THE DALAI LAMA. (Because this is one of the things that will happen. If we are recognized, they will send an invitation to Bishop Fellay to go to these things. And he could not say "no" to the Pope, because he will belong to the Pope. He will HAVE to be there. Like Bishop Rifan in Campos, a couple of years after his recognition by Rome. He was invited to go to a big celebration with all the bishops of the Diocese... of that province of South America there, where there was a great shameful circus in the procession, with women half naked and all that, and he was there. You can see him on the Internet, participating at that Novus Ordo shameful ceremony, because you cannot say "no". Once you are back, you cannot say "no", because you don't want to lose what they gave you. And Father, Dom Gerard, who had received from Rome the promise that he will be allowed to continue the fight against modernism; five years after having signed, he concelebrated the New Mass with Pope John Paul II in Rome. Of course! Of course! And now you go to... Somebody sent me a copy on the Internet, of a leaflet of the bookstore and church store that they have in Flavigny, at the monastery of Dom Augustine, another former Traditionalist "recognized" in 1988, and they are now selling statues of John Paul II! See here: http://www.traditions-monastiques.com/fr/185-statue-saint-statuette-sainte-famille That's why Rome wants us back, because they know they will win in the long run.) THE DALAI LAMA SHOULDN’T EVEN BE THERE. WE HOPE THAT AT THE NEXT PRAYER MEETING AT ASSISI TO PRAY FOR PEACE THE POPE WILL BE SURROUNDED BY ALL THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONSECRATING RUSSIA (That should be the real prayer at Assisi, not with all the religions, only with all the Catholic bishops, and to consecrate Russia to the Blessed Virgin Mary, that's what should be.) THIS IS WHERE THE TRUE PEACE IS. ENCOURAGING PRAYERS TO FALSE GODS WILL NOT BRING PEACE

    SO THE WORDS OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE TO JOHN PAUL II IN 1988 ARE STILL VALID TODAY: "THE TIME FOR COOPERATION HAS NOT YET COME." (This is Father Violette's letter! This is the whole condemnation of their attitude today; this is a new proof of the change in the Society!) IN ROME ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THE PRESENT ROMAN AUTHORITIES CONTINUE TO BE FAITHFUL TO THEIR PRINCIPLES OF THE NEW THEOLOGY, THEIR NEW ECCLESIOLOGY, THEIR NEW EVANGELIZATION, EXEMPLIFIED BY THE SPIRIT OF VATICAN II AND ASSISI IN WHICH THEY WANT TO DRAW US AND OF WHICH WE WANT NO PART.

    THE SSPX ALSO CONTINUES FAITHFUL TO THE CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES TRANSMITTED BY THE ARCHBISHOP: "WE DO NOT VIEW RECONCILIATION IN THE SAME WAY. CARDINAL RATZINGER SEES IT IN THE SENSE OF BRINGING US TO VATICAN II.

    WE SEE IT AS A RETURN OF ROME TO TRADITION. WE CANNOT COME TOGETHER. IT IS A DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE DEAF". (And here is a quote from the Archbishop about the renewal of the dialogue with Rome:) "I WILL RAISE THE QUESTION ON THE DOCTRINAL LEVEL: 'ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THE GREAT ENCYCLICALS OF ALL THE PREVIOUS POPES? ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH QUANTA CURA OF PIUS IX, IMMORTALE DEI, LIBERTAS, OF LEO XIII, PASCENDI OF PIUS X, QUAS PRIMAS OF PIUS XI, HUMANI GENERIS OF PIUS XII? ARE YOU IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THESE POPES AND THEIR TEACHING? DO YOU STILL ACCEPT THE ANTI-MODERNIST OATH? ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THE SOCIAL KINGSHIP OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST? IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE DOCTRINE OF YOUR PREDECESSORS IT IS USELESS TO TALK.” (That's our Archbishop!) “AS LONG AS YOU REFUSE TO REFORM THE COUNCIL IN LIGHT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THESE POPES WHO PRECEDED YOU THERE IS NO DIALOGUE POSSIBLE. IT IS USELESS... THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN US IS NOT A SMALL THING. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THEM TO TELL US: ‘YOU CAN SAY THE OLD MASS’... NO, THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN US IS NOT IN THE LITURGY, IT IS IN THE DOCTRINE.” (Those were quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre in an interview published in December 1988 in Fideliter # 66.)

     

    (Now, the final answer to the last argument of Father Aulagnier, where he says:)

    4. "I THINK THAT THERE IS A DANGER IN SEEING THIS CONFLICT LAST FOR AGES".

    IN MY OPINION I THINK WE MIGHT SEE HERE THE REAL REASON FOR FATHER AULAGNIER'S CHANGE. THE FIGHT IS DRAGGING ON. HE HAS BEEN AT THE CENTER OF THIS FIGHT FOR OVER 30 YEARS. MAYBE HE IS TIRED OF THE FIGHT!

    (We could say the same about Bishop Fellay!) BUT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT A CONFLICT OVER THE FAITH HAS LASTED FOR AGES. THE ARIAN CRISIS LASTED OVER 70 YEARS, THE PAPAL EXILE IN AVIGNON 68 YEARS, THE GREAT SCHISM 39 YEARS. IS THIS A REASON TO ABANDON THE FIGHT? TO COME TO SOME ARRANGEMENT? IT'S A GOOD THING ST.ATHANASIUS DIDN'T GET TIRED OF BEING EXILED, THREATENED, FALSELY ACCUSED, EXCOMMUNICATED ETC.

    BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T BE ST. ATHANASIUS.

     

    HE SEEMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT: (The following is an older quote from Father Aulagnier, from Fideliter # 65, Sept-Oct. 1988. It shows how he changed) "IN OTHER TIMES, HERETICS AND SCHISMATICS LEFT THE CHURCH. TODAY, AS ST.PIUS X WARNED US, THEY REMAIN, TO MAKE HER EVOLVE FROM WITHIN, AND TO SEDUCE, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, ALL OR PART OF THE FLOCK OF THE HOLY BISHOP... BUT ONE DOES NOT DEAL WITH THIS KIND OF ENEMY, ALL THE MORE SO, THAT HE IS CUNNING. (We should not even deal with them, because they are too cunning.) ONE DOES NOT NEGOTIATE WITH HIM A FALSE AND SEPARATE PEACE. (This was Father Aulagnier 15 years BEFORE his change!) ONE FIGHTS HIM TILL THE END, STRONG IN HIS RIGHT - DEUS VULT! - GOD WILLS IT! - REMINDING HIM OF THE TRUTH HE ATTACKS IN VAIN... ROME KNOWS IT MADE AN ERROR, A GRAVE ERROR: THE EXCOMMUNICATION (AGAINST ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE). HOW TO REPAIR THE ERROR? TIME WILL TELL. IN ANY CASE, NOT WITHOUT A FRANK RETURN OF THE HIERARCHY TO THE TOTAL AND INTEGRAL CONFESSION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH WHOLE AND ENTIRE. THE DAY WILL COME WHEN ROME, BY ITS CONVERSION, WILL FIND OUR SERENITY."

    (And Fr. Violette comments:) SEEMS LIKE HE HAS LOST HIS SERENITY. (And here is Father Violette, who had put that quote there to show that Father Aulagnier has changed! It is like the Russian dolls, you know: A little doll put into a bigger doll, both put into a bigger doll. So I am reading this to you to show that Father Violette has changed and, in his letter, he used a quote of Father Aulagnier to show that Father Aulagnier had changed!)

     

    DEAR FAITHFUL, DO NOT LOSE YOUR SERENITY, STAND CALM, FIRM IN THE UNCHANGING FAITH OF ALL TIMES. DO NOT ABANDON THE FIGHT. SURE IT IS DRAGGING ON. BUT WE WILL WIN. (And then the best wishes for Christmas and all that.)

     

    So, my dear faithful, I will send you a link to this and you can print it and show that to your friends who tell you that the Society has not changed and blah, blah, blah. Okay, That's... I don't think we can find a better proof!

     

    In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen!









    My suggestion:


    To most effectively present this to an Accordista, you ought
    to copy the Firebrick Red portion, above, and leave the names
    and identifying data as a blank underline.  Present this to your
    friend and tell them this was written about an SSPX priest who
    was later expelled, and ask them why they suppose he might
    have been expelled.  Let them go through this one step at
    a time.  




    A priest of the SSPX was disciplined for being “disobedient” – and to show him how he had previously been prone to much better obedience, the following, which is his own writing, was presented to him.  Since the accused priest had previously written the following, but he had then later departed from this manner of thinking, he was ultimately expelled from the society for his disobedience:


           “In other times, heretics and schismatics left the Church.  Today, as St. Pius X warned us, they remain, to make her evolve from within, and to seduce, if it were possible, all or part of the flock of the holy Bishop… But one does not deal with this kind of enemy, all the more so, that he is cunning.  One does not negotiate with him a false and separate peace.  One fights him till the end, strong in his right  -  Deus vult!  -  God wills it!  -  Reminding him of the truth [that] he attacks in vain … Rome knows it made an error, a grave error:  the excommunication (of Archbishop Lefebvre).  How to repair the error?  Time will tell.  In any case, not without a frank return of the hierarchy to the total and integral confession of the Catholic Faith whole and entire.  The day will come when Rome, by its conversion, will find our serenity.”



    After the accused priest was expelled, his accuser, commenting on this quote, said:  “It seems like he has lost his serenity.”  That is to say, while he was waiting for Rome to find serenity in our traditional Catholicism, the passage of time has caused him, instead, to lose his own serenity.

    How do you suppose his deportment had so changed that he would then later be expelled?  How would you expect that he could have CHANGED so as to become later DISOBEDIENT, to the point were he would be expelled?  Here is what was later written about him, AFTER his expulsion:




    Dear Faithful,

           Unfortunately I have sad news to end the year. Some of you may have seen it on the Internet. Indeed Father A____, one of Archbishop Lefebvre’s ... in the resistance, assistant to the Superior General, founding district superior of the French district had to be expelled from the Society.  Last September we were saddened by the interview of Father A____ to the Wanderer.  At first I thought of replying earlier but then, decided to wait to see how this affair would end.  This interview, along with an extended article published in French on his website as well as in a French daily newspaper proved to be the last straw.

           For a long time now, since ----, he had publicly and virulently opposed the Society’s stand regarding negotiations with Rome.  As well, he disobeyed our constitutions and repeatedly disobeyed Bishop Fellay’s explicit orders thus giving a bad example. He had also created a very difficult situation within the Society trying to sway its members in pursuing an accord with Rome thus trying to cause division and even rebellion against the legitimate authority.  The problem was not that he had contrary opinions but that he was airing them in public and trying to undermine the Superior General and the Society.  This state of affairs had lasted long enough.  Because it was Father A____ and the respect he commanded in the Society, Bishop Fellay and the General Council were very patient but sometimes, even patience can be a fault.

           After reading Father A____’s interview a few questions come to mind:  why grant an interview to a newspaper, which is clearly against the SSPX?   Are birds of a feather starting to flock together?  Secondly Father Aulagnier seems to imply that those who disagree with his opinion and agree with the Superior General and the majority of SSPX members regarding the so-called reconciliation are “yes men”.  This is not only insulting it is ludicrous.  On the contrary as we will see, the SSPX’s present stand would seem more faithful to the Archbishop.

    ... Let us consider these points.

    [Dear reader, please keep in mind, this is being written here by
    a senior member of the SSPX leadership, in regards to the reasons
    for the expulsion of Fr. A____.  This "resistance" is the resistance of
    the SSPX to the Liberalizing, syncretist pull from apostate Rome.]



    1. The danger of schism.

           Our resistance is not rebellion.  It is the necessary attitude of Catholics who want to keep the faith when faced with prelates who attack, deny or threaten it.  

    [Perhaps Fr. Themann could brush up on his history before he
    devotes several hours to a question that has already been answered
    only recently -- in the SSPX that he hasn't learned about yet.]


           We do not want to become Protestants!  We continue to believe in the divinity of Our Lord and His social Kingship, His Church.  The fact that we keep the faith and we continue to speak with the Roman authorities shows there is no danger of schism because we still recognize their authority.  Dispensations and other ecclesiastical permissions have been sought and received from the Roman authorities.  What is in question is not their authority but whether we can trust them or not.  It is not just a matter of having a majority in a Roman commission.  It is a matter of:  Can we put ourselves under them and trust them to protect our Faith?  Unfortunately, the present Roman authorities have proven over and over they cannot be trusted, that they have not changed as we will point out later on.

           The solution to this crisis will come from Rome when the Roman authorities come back to the integrity of the Faith.  But until then we do well to continue our resistance.  How long this will take is not our problem but God’s.  But we cannot for the sake of a fake unity join those who promote errors, who reduce the Church to a human institution, or simply one religion among others, thus destroying it.  So we continue Tradition and continue to denounce those who reject it in the name of a new conciliar church.  As Archbishop Lefebvre said:  by cutting themselves off from the previous popes, the modern Roman authorities are the ones who are schismatic.  When Rome returns to the Faith the only matter for discussion will be who will become a bishop and who will he replace?


    2. His friendship with the “heroic” priests of Campos.

           Friendship is indeed a noble sentiment.  But does it come before one’s duty or before one’s Faith. Further, I simply ask the question:  Does it take heroic virtue to capitulate in the fight for Tradition in order to obtain recognition?  Did it take heroic virtue to renounce their spiritual father, Bishop de Castro Mayer, to abandon and turn against their former comrades in arms?  I don’t think so.  Is Father A____ also on the verge of choosing between the pre-Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Archbishop Lefebvre?  As if there was a difference.

    [Dear reader, please continue to keep in mind, this is being written
    here by a senior member of the SSPX leadership.  This "resistance"
    is the resistance of the SSPX to the Liberalizing, syncretist pull
    from apostate Rome, via "approved" prelates who attack the Faith.]



    3. The attitude of Rome is new

           This is the most unbelievable reason of all.  Where has Father A____ been for the past 5 years? Have the modern Roman authorities really changed?  Has he forgotten what they have done to the Fraternity of St. Peter, which is their own creation?  Has he forgotten about the sacrilegious prayer meetings of Assisi?  
    ...
           He seems to have forgotten what Archbishop Lefebvre knew well and denounced:  there are two Romes:  Catholic Rome and the neo-modernist Rome.  As did Archbishop Lefebvre, we adhere with our whole heart to Catholic Rome but reject the neo-modernist Rome.  Catholic Rome has been infiltrated and is occupied by Modernists.  This is a fact.  The proclamation by Cardinal Castrillon that “The old Roman rite thus conserves in the Church its right of citizenship” is nice but changes nothing.  It is perfectly in line with the neo-modernist ecumenism of the neo-modernist Romans, which is:  Why not accept also the Mass of St. Pius V?  We accept everything else!

           But we are not looking for acceptance.  We will not be happy if at the next Assisi prayer meeting Bishop Fellay stands closer to the Pope than the Dalai Lama.  The Dalai Lama shouldn’t even be there.  We hope that at the next prayer meeting at Assisi to pray for peace the Pope will be surrounded by all the Catholic bishops consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  This is where the true peace is.  Encouraging prayers to false gods will not bring peace.

    [Again, keep in mind, this is not an expelled priest writing this,
    but a leader from the top of the SSPX addressing the Faithful
    to explain why Fr. was expelled.  He was expelled because he
    was OPPOSED to these principles.]


           So the words of Archbishop Lefebvre to John Paul II in 1988 are still valid today:  “The time for cooperation has not yet come.”  Absolutely nothing has changed.  The present Roman authorities continue to be faithful to their principles of the new theology, new ecclesiology new evangelization exemplified by the spirit of Vatican II and Assisi in which they want to draw us and of which we want no part.

           The SSPX also continues faithful to the Catholic principles transmitted by the Archbishop.  “We do not view reconciliation in the same way.  Cardinal Ratzinger sees it in the sense of bringing us to Vatican II.  We see it as the return of Rome to Tradition.  We cannot come together.  It is a dialogue between the deaf.”  For the renewal of the dialogue with Rome, “I will raise the question to the doctrinal level:  ‘Are you in agreement with the great encyclicals of all the previous popes?  Are you in agreement with Quanta cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei, Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas primas of Pius XI, Humani generis of Pius XII?  Are you in full communion with these popes and their teaching?  Do you still accept the anti-modernist oath?  Are you in favor of the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ?  If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors it is useless to talk.  As long as you refuse to reform the council in light of the doctrine of these popes who preceded you there is no dialogue possible.  It is useless…  The opposition between us is not a small thing.  It is not sufficient for then to tell us:  you can say the old Mass…  No the opposition between is not there, it is the doctrine.”

    4. “I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages”.

           In my opinion, I think we might see here the real reason for Father A___’s change.  The fight is dragging on.  He has been at the center of this fight for over 30 years.  Maybe he is tired of the fight!  But this is not the first time that a conflict over the faith has lasted for ages.  The Arian crisis lasted over 70 years, the papal exile in Avignon 68 years, the great Schism 39 years.  Is this a reason to abandon the fight to come to some arrangement?  It’s a good thing St. Athanasius didn’t get tired of being exiled, threatened, falsely accused, excommunicated, etc. ..He wouldn’t be St. Athanasius!

    ...

           Dear faithful do not lose your serenity, stand calm firm in the unchanging faith of all times. Do not abandon the fight. Sure it is dragging out. But we will win.
    ...

     With my blessing
     Father  J_____






    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #10 on: August 23, 2013, 04:55:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • These half-hearted clerics are so afraid of being left on the wrong side of history that they abandon their solid investment in truth and start thinking that tradition can mean coming to terms with the things of this world and making peace with whoever is in authority. These are not to be seen as parachutists in the camp of the enemy; they are the ones that have been converted.



    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18152
    • Reputation: +8245/-632
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #11 on: August 23, 2013, 07:38:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    In order to be sure that the lesson has been learned, a
    good teacher will compose a quiz that hits some of the
    highlights of the topic that has been covered, before
    moving along into the next topic.  

    If anyone takes this as "condescending" it should not be
    forgotten that this is PRECISELY WHAT +FELLAY has been
    doing for the past 18 years:  he has taken the entire
    SSPX one step at a time through the process of learning
    how to be good accordistas, and the majority of them
    have come right along like sheeple.  But hardly any of them
    have been offended that he was "condescending."  In fact,
    anyone who dares say such a thing is immediately shunned,
    marginalized, and exiled in the cult of +Fellay!  So how is it
    that he gets away with this without anyone taking notice
    of "the man behind the curtain?"





    This is a job for Toto!!




    FILL-IN THE BLANKS.
    EACH BLANK LINE REPRESENTS ONE WORD.
    THERE IS PRECISELY ONE WORD THAT BELONGS TO EACH LINE.

    This set of statements is in regard to the attached letter of one
    past Society of St. Pius X District Superior of Canada, who wrote
    and distributed this letter to the Faithful of the Canadian District.
    This letter has been in the public domain ever since, over a matter
    of several years, and the author has never been reprimanded by
    the Superior General for having written it, nor has the SG ever
    once made any comment or denial indicating his disapproval of the
    contents of this letter.

    1)     An SSPX priest, Fr. A., who had been in good standing for some
    years, a priest who had been the founding District Superior of the
    French District, was being _______ because of his "disobedience."

    2)     This SSPX priest, Fr. A., had _______ the Society's constitutions
    and had repeatedly _______ Bishop Fellay’s explicit orders, thus giving
    a bad example to the other Society priests.

    3)     Fr. A., who was being disciplined had kept a website and a blog
    active on the Internet, by which means he had been trying to _____
    Society members toward favoring, or pursuing an accord, or an
    agreement with modernist Rome.  

    4)     Fr. A. was being disciplined because he had been thereby trying
    to cause division and even _______ against the legitimate authority
    of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard
    Fellay.

    5)     The problem was not that he had held opinions that were in
    opposition to the official SSPX stand on certain principles, but that
    he was ______ these contrary opinions in public.  In other words, he
    was not forbidden from harboring a difference of opinion, but only
    from ______ that opinion in the public forum.

    6)     By making his contrary opinions publicly known, and thus not
    being "obediently silent," this SSPX priest was trying to _______ the
    Superior General and the Society of St. Pius X.

    7)     Due to the high position and respect that this cleric commanded
    in the Society, Bishop Fellay and the General Council were very ______,
    but sometimes, ______ can be a fault.

    8)     Fr. A., in his writings, seems to imply that those who disagree
    with his opinion and thereby agree with the Superior General, +Fellay,
    and the majority of SSPX members regarding the so-called reconciliation
    are "_____ _____" (two words).

    9)     This (no. 8) is not only _______ it is _______.

    10)    On the contrary, as we will see, the SSPX's present stand would
    seem more _______ to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

    11)    Fr. A's accuser here in this letter summarizes Fr. A's arguments
    that were found in his interview article published in The Wanderer
    (September 2003 issue) in ________ of a "reconciliation" with
    Modernist Rome.

    12)    Regarding the first item, the Danger of Schism, Fr. A's accuser
    asserts that "Our ________ is not rebellion."

    13)    On the contrary, Fr. A's accuser says, "Our _______... is the
    necessary attitude of Catholics who want to keep the ______ when
    faced with prelates who attack, deny or threaten it."

    14)    "We do not want to become ________!"

    15)    "We continue to believe in the divinity of Our Lord and His
    Social ________, His Church.

    16)    Fr. A's accuser says, "There is no danger of schism because
    we still recognize (Rome's) ________."

    17)   What we question is not their authority, says Fr. A's accuser,
    but we question whether or not we can ____ the Roman authorities.

    18)   Fr. A's accuser says that, It's not just a matter of having a
    majority in a Roman commission, but it is rather a matter of whether
    we can put ourselves ________ them.

    19)   It is also a matter of whether, says Fr. A's accuser, we can
    trust the Roman authorities to ________ our Faith.

    20)  "Unfortunately," says the accuser of Fr. A., "the present Roman
    authorities have proven over and over they cannot be ________."

    21)  They have proven, he says, over and over, "that they have ____
    ________ (two words), as we will point out later on."

    22)   "The solution to this ______ will come from Rome, when the
    Roman authorities _____ _____ (two words) to the _______ of the
    ______."

    23)   "But until then," until the Roman authorities ______ ______
    (two words), "we do well to continue our ________."

    24)   "How long this will last," that is, how long we will have to wait
    for the Roman authorities to _____  _____ (two words) to the
    ______ of the ______, "is not our _______ but God's."

    25)   "But we cannot, for the sake of a _____ unity, join those who
    promote _______."

    26)   "We cannot ... join those ... who ______ the Church to a
    _______ institution."

    27)   "We cannot ... join those ... who _______ the Church to ...
    simply one _______ among others, thus _______ it."

    28)   "So we continue Tradition, and continue to _______ those
    who reject it in the name of a new _______ church.

    29)   We continue in the way of Archbishop Lefebvre, to ______
    those who reject Tradition, says the accuser of Fr. A., that is, those
    who reject Tradition in the name of a new _______ church.

    30)   For example, to continue on the way of ABL would therefore
    be to ______ those who reject Tradition in the name of a new
    ______ church, even though they say it is only a "________," not
    really a _______ church. [Confer DICI.org website, August 2013]

    31)   As ABL said:  "By cutting themselves off from the previous
    ______, the modern Roman authorities are the ones who are ______."

    32)   In order to obtain ________ with one's estranged friends,
    does it take heroic virtue to capitulate in the fight for Tradition?

    33)   Fr. A's accuser asks, "Did it take heroic virtue for the so-called
    heroic priests of Campos, Brazil, to ________ their spiritual father,
    Bishop de Castro Mayer, and to _______ and turn against their former
    comrades in arms?"

    34)   The attitude of Rome has changed: it is ______!  

    35)   This (no. 34) is the most _______ reason of all!  Where has Fr. A.
    been for the past 5 years? (That is, from 1998 to 2003)

    36)   Have the modern Roman authorities really _______? Has Fr. A.
    forgotten what they have done to the Fraternity of St. Peter, which
    is their own ________?

    37)   Has he forgotten about the ________ prayer meetings in Assisi?

    38)   [Keep in mind:  this was written when there had been only two
    prayer meetings in Assisi, but now, after 2011, there have been a
    total of _____ prayer meetings in Assisi.]

    39)  [And furthermore, keep in mind that here, in 2003, and ever
    since then, this letter of the accuser of Fr. A. has not been in any
    way criticized by +Fellay, the SG who had been at the time, in 2003,
    openly critical of the previous two Assisi prayer meetings, but who,
    since 2006 has no longer uttered a single word of criticism of the
    Assisi prayer meetings, most tellingly the _____ Assisi prayer
    meeting that occurred on October 18th, 2011.]

    40)  The last Assisi prayer meeting (as of 2003) took place one week
    after Rome granted _______ to the 'heroic' priests of Campos, Brazil,
    who did not say a word against Assisi II.

    41)   By the way, hasn't Fr. A. noticed how quiet the 'heroic' priests
    of Campos are since they singed their _______? Doesn't he know that
    on May 24th, 2003, at the same time that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos
    was offering the Traditional Latin Mass in St. Mary Major, the Pope
    was giving away the Catholic Church of Saints Vincent and Anastasius,
    which contains the embalmed _____ of 22 popes, to the Bulgarian
    Orthodox to share with Roman Catholics?  Some ______!

    42)   Fr. A. seems to have forgotten what Archbishop Lefebvre knew
    well and openly denounced:  There are ______ Romes:  Catholic Rome
    and the ____-__________ (hyphenated word) Rome.

    43)   As did Archbishop Lefebvre, we _______ with our whole heart
    to Catholic Rome, but we _______ the ____-_________ Rome.

    44)   "Catholic Rome has been _________ and is occupied by  
    __________.  That is a fact."

    45)   It is perfectly in line with the neo-Modernist ________ of
    the neo-Modernist Romans, which is:  Why not accept the Mass of
    St. Pius V?  (Note: he doesn't say the reformed Mass of John XXIII,
    or Pius XII's revised 1956 Holy Week of Bugnini)?  We accept
    everything ______.

    46)   "We are not looking for ________.  We will not be happy if
    at the next Assisi prayer meeting Bishop Fellay gets to stand
    closer to the Pope than the _______ Lama."

    47)   "The ______ Lama shouldn't even be there," says the accuser
    of Fr. A., "we hope that at the next prayer meeting in Assisi to pray
    for peace the pope will be surrounded by all the ______ bishops,
    consecrating ______."

    48)   This is where true peace is to be obtained;  but encouraging
    prayer to ______ gods will not ______ peace.

    49)   So the words of Archbishop Lefebvre to JPII in 1988 are still
    valid today:  "The time for _______ has not yet come."  In Rome
    absolutely nothing has _______.  [Note:  Can you imagine +Fellay
    saying these words today???]

    50)  The present Roman authorities continue to be faithful to their
    principles of the ____ _________ (two words), their ____
    ________ (two words), their ____ _________ (two words),
    exemplified by the [unclean] spirit of Vatican II and Assisi, ______
    which they want to draw us, and _____ which we want no part.
    [Note:  Can you imagine +F saying these words today???]

    51)   We want _____ part of the [unclean] ______ of Vatican II.
    [Note:  Can you imagine +F saying these words today???]

    52)   The SSPX continues today, faithful to the Catholic principles
    Transmitted by the Archbishop:  "We do not view reconciliation in
    the same way [as Rome does].  ______ _______ (two words) sees
    it in the sense of bringing us to Vatican II." [Not An Easy Answer!]

    53)    Our view of reconciliation is that "we see it as a return of
    Rome to Tradition.  We cannot come together.  It is a dialogue
    between the ______."  [Please note:  what ABL said was a
    dialogue between the deaf, has changed. What used to be
    the Society and apostate Rome unable to hear each other,
    has now become a dialogue of the deaf between the
    leadership of the Society and those true Catholics who dare
    to uphold the principles of ABL which the Society leadership
    has now abandoned,
    and with them apparently a large part
    of the Society Faithful have likewise followed suit, perhaps
    unwittingly, but nonetheless in fact.]

    54)   "I will raise the question to the _________ level:  'Are you in
    agreement with the great encyclicals of all the previous ______?  
    Are you in agreement with Quanta Cura of Pius ____, Immortale Dei,
    Libertas, of Leo ______, Pascendi dominici gregis of ____ ___ _____
    ___ (4 words), Quas primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius ___?'"

    55)   "I will raise the question to the ________ level:  "...Are
    you in full ___________ with these popes and their teaching?  

    56)   Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has handed down this principle,
    that having been through the war zone once, he would no longer
    dialogue with apostate Rome as he may have done long before;  no,
    he would now and forever raise the question to the ______ level.
    But what about +Fellay?  Where does he "raise the question?" As
    a matter of fact, +Fellay places the entire burden of proof on the
    question of _________.

    57)   Do you still accept Sacrorum Antistitum (the anti-Modernist
    ______ ) of Pope Saint Pius X?

    58)   Are you in favor of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus
    Christ?  If you do not accept the _______ of your predecessors
    it is useless to talk.  [Note:  Most ironically, this principle that
    has been handed down to us from ABL used to apply between
    the Society which he founded and apostate Rome, however,
    the game has changed.  Now, it applies between all Faithful
    Catholics and the leadership of the Society which he founded,
    which has taken sides with apostate Rome! Kyrie eleison!]

    59)   As long as you ________ to reform the Council in light of the _______
    of these popes who proceeded you there is no _______ possible.
    It is useless.

    60)   The opposition between us is no ______ thing.  

    61)   It is not sufficient for them to tell us, "You can say the Old Mass."
    No, the opposition between us is not in the ________, it is in the
    _________."

    62)   Quotes taken from an interview with Archbishop Lefebvre
    published in December 1988 in _________ #66.

    63)   I think there is a danger in seeing this ________ last for ages.

    64)   In my opinion I think we might see here the real reason for
    Fr. A's change.  The fight is ________ on.  He has been at the
    center of this fight for over 30 years.  Maybe he is _______ of the
    fight!  [Note:  could it be that +Fellay is likewise tired of the fight?]

    65)   But this is not the first time that a conflict over the Faith has
    laste for ages.  The Arian crisis lasted over 70 years, the _______
    exile in Avignon 68 years, the ______ Western Schism 39 years.

    66)   Is this a reason to abandon the ______, to come to ______
    agreement?

    67)   It's a good thing Bishop Athanasius didn't get tired of being
    _______, threatened, ________ accused, ___________, etc.

    68)   Because if he had gotten tired, he would not be "______"
    Athanasius.





    Answers:

    1)    expelled
    2)    disobeyed, disobeyed
    3)    sway
    4)    rebellion
    5)    airing, airing
    6)    undermine
    7)    patient, patience
    8)    yes, men
    9)    insulting, ludicrous
    10)  faithful
    11)  favor
    12)  resistance
    13)  resistance, faith
    14)  protestants
    15)  Kingship
    16)  authority
    17)  trust
    18)  under
    19)  protect
    20)  trusted
    21)  not, changed
    22)  crisis, come, back, integrity, faith
    23)  come, back, resistance
    24)  come, back, integrity, faith, problem
    25)  fake, errors
    26)  reduce, human
    27)  reduce, religion, destroying
    28)  denounce, conciliar
    29)  denounce, conciliar
    30)  denounce, conciliar, tendency, conciliar
    31)  Popes, schismatic
    32)  reconciliation
    33)  renounce, abandon
    34)  new
    35)  unbelievable
    36)  changed, creation
    37)  sacrilegious
    38)  three
    39)  third
    40)  recognition
    41)  agreement, hearts, change
    42)  two, neo-modernist
    43)  adhere, reject, neo-Modernist
    44)  infiltrated, Modernists
    45)  ecumenism, else
    46)  acceptance, Dalai
    47)  Dalai, Catholic, Russia
    48)  false, bring
    49)  cooperation, changed
    50)  new, theology, new, ecclesiology, new, evangelization, in, of
    51)  no, spirit
    52)  Cardinal, Ratzinger /ALTERNATIVELY/ Bishop, Fellay
    53)  deaf
    54)  doctrinal, popes, IX, XIII, Pius X, XII
    55)  doctrinal, communion
    56)  doctrinal, authority
    57)  Oath
    58)  doctrine
    59)  refuse, doctrine, dialogue
    60)  small
    61)  liturgy, doctrine
    62)  Fideliter
    63)  conflict
    64)  dragging, tired
    65)  Papal, Great
    66)  fight, some
    67)  exiled, falsely, excommunicated
    68)  SAINT




    If anyone would like a Word file with this material on it, just post
    your request here, please.



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline magdalena

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2047
    • Reputation: +1805/-38
    • Gender: Female
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #12 on: August 23, 2013, 03:15:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • An excellent letter by Father Violette!   If only all SSPX priests, especially those in authority, would read it and re-read it. How unfortunate it is to watch the last bastion against modernism crumble and fall--and they don't even seem to realize it. Or worse yet, they no longer care.  
    But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.
    Luke 10:42

    Offline stgobnait

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1345
    • Reputation: +941/-53
    • Gender: Female
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #13 on: August 23, 2013, 03:44:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I fear it is the latter.... they know our plight... yet they choose to ignore it... i wonder how they can see the fruits of their hard work being destroyed.... yet that what they do... pray for priests...

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18152
    • Reputation: +8245/-632
    • Gender: Male
    Fr Paul Aulagnier
    « Reply #14 on: August 23, 2013, 06:20:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    These half-hearted clerics are so afraid of being left on the wrong side of history that they abandon their solid investment in truth and start thinking that tradition can mean coming to terms with the things of this world and making peace with whoever is in authority. These are not to be seen as parachutists in the camp of the enemy; they are the ones that have been converted.




    Parachutists in the camp of the enemy -- indeed!  And that's
    what they wanted to do?!?!  Convert Rome 'from the inside'!?!?  

    Give me a BREAK.
     

    They can't even handle a 68-question pop quiz!  
    (Actually, it's 135 questions - more like a mid-term!)
    Show me one SSPX priest who can get a 100 on that quiz and
    yet makes excuses for the new agenda from Menzingen!

    Show me just one.

    Parachutists in the enemy camp!    :facepalm:




    Quote from: magdalena
    An excellent letter by Father Violette!   If only all SSPX priests, especially those in authority, would read it and re-read it. How unfortunate it is to watch the last bastion against modernism crumble and fall--and they don't even seem to realize it. Or worse yet, they no longer care.  


    And most tellingly, not even the author, Fr. Violette, would sign
    his name to this today -- that's how bad it is:  doctrine changes
    for a Liberal, depending on the time and the place.  What's good
    today is old hat tomorrow.  In one generation this comes to pass.


    "Amen I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till
    all these things be done.  Heaven and earth shall pass but
    my words shall not pass"
    (Matt. xxiv. 34-35).


    Quote from: stgobnait
    I fear it is the latter.... they know our plight... yet they choose to ignore it... i wonder how they can see the fruits of their hard work being destroyed.... yet that's what they do... pray for priests...



    "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh"
    (II Thes. ii. 7).



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16