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

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA  (Read 2834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Incredulous

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8901
  • Reputation: +8675/-849
  • Gender: Male
Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
« on: June 22, 2019, 10:03:32 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!4


    • If you go onto Tradition In Action's website to the "Search" section and type-in "SSPX", you'll see many, many old postings,
    mostly critical of SSPX positions and postures. TIA Search Link

    But what is the core of the dispute?

    The crux of their disagreement goes to the validity of the major Vatican II docuмents.
    TIA's position has always been, that they are theologically, NOT Catholic.

    TIA's response to an inquiry below... ".... If +ABL could be the cleric who would help restore the Church like St. Athanasius?"
    clearly identifies the problem with that +ABL/Athanasius analogy.

    This also helps to explain why the SSPX has always hated Dr. Plineo and TIA.  
    Why Menzingen wants to take over the Devotion to Our Lady of Good Success in Quito.
    And why Cathinfo is crawling with SSPX trolls to defame Dr. Plineo, Atila Guimaraes and TIA.  :cowboy:



    TIA responds:

     N.N.,

     We respect your interpretation of that part of Mother Mariana’s prophecy mentioning a future prelate who will restore the Church. Regarding private prophecies, we believe any person is entitled to his own opinion until the prophecy is fulfilled or until Holy Mother Church presents her final interpretation of it.

     In the realm of facts, we have some observations on the presuppositions of your letter:

     1. We are glad to acknowledge that, by founding the Society of St. Pius X, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre greatly contributed to keep the Tridentine Mass alive among Catholics in the long period when this Mass was effectively banned by the Liturgical Reform of Paul VI. However, we do not believe he was the only one doing this meritorious work.

     Indeed, Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dình Thuc preceded Archbishop Lefebvre in that fidelity to the Traditional Latin Mass, as well as in the excommunication he received from the Vatican when he consecrated Bishops in 1976 to continue his work. Regarding the Mass the two Prelates took similar positions. The main difference between them is that Archbishop Thuc founded an underground movement quite difficult to control or even to track and, hence, open to all kinds of speculations, while Archbishop Lefebvre founded one that is visible and public.

     Besides these two Prelates - along with the Bishops consecrated by them - others also assisted in the same effort of maintaining the Tridentine Mass, although without founding priestly organizations. For example, Archbishop Geraldo Proença Sigaud and Bishop Antonio Castro Mayer in Brazil also maintained the Tridentine Mass alive in that country of the largest Catholic population in the world, where SSPX has little influence.

     We should not disregard that the true Sacrifice of Calvary continued to be indisputably renewed also by the Masses of other Catholic Rites, which only very slowly are being forced by the Vatican to adapt their liturgies to the progressivist reforms of the Latin Rite. These Rites count more than 15 million faithful, including large Catholic communities such as 5,5 million Catholics of the Ukrainian Catholic Rite, 3 million of the Maronite Rite, 3 million of the Syro-Malabar Rite and one million of the Melkite Rite.

     Therefore, Archbishop Lefebvre was neither the only Prelate to maintain the Tridentine Mass, as implied in your letter, nor was the true Sacrifice of the Mass upheld only by means of the Latin Rite Mass.

     2. For a long period Archbishop Lefebvre presented himself within SSPX as not having signed the docuмents of Vatican II. His faithful followers would take offense if anyone supported the opposite, even when presenting solid arguments. However, after an interview of Card. Hoyos in 2008 where he affirmed Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, this internal “dogma” became less secure. Later, the Vatican released photocopies of the conciliar docuмents signed by the French Archbishop, putting to rest that false statement.

     Today even the four Bishops of SSPX admit that Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, as Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais stated in his recently published biography on Archbishop Lefebvre.

     Although in broad lines Msgr. Lefebvre took a line of action that opposed the Council after that signature, today a growing number of his followers - including the Bishops he consecrated - act as if his opposition to the Council was quite nuanced. They imply he would have accepted Vatican II if it were interpreted in the light of Tradition. If this is true, we have Msgr. Lefebvre as a man who saw the Council not as a great catastrophe that should be completely wiped away from the Church, but as a man who wanted to save the Council.

     Now, how is it possible to consider a Prelate who signed the docuмents of Vatican II and wanted to save it as a restorer of the Church from the present day apostasy? Especially since those docuмents are the official expression of that same apostasy.

     We know from History that the cause of the persecution against St. Athanasius and St. Hilary of Poitiers was their refusal to agree with the various Arian or Semi-Arian councils of their time. It does not appear that Archbishop Lefebvre followed those glorious examples, since he signed all the Vatican II docuмents and would accept it if it were interpreted correctly.

     This is why, in our opinion, he is not the Prelate foreseen in Mother Mariana’s revelations. As you correctly noted, we believe that the mentioned Prelate is still to come.

          Cordially,

          TIA correspondence desk


    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +249/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #1 on: June 22, 2019, 11:13:23 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • More falsehood. It is a fact that Archbishop Lefebvre signed most of the docuмents, but two he did not. And his reasons for doing so are contained in the biography by Bp Tissier which they like to pick and choose the content they mention! Anyone who has read it and studied his life will know better then these pathetic argument and sterile articles. TIA has slanderously skewed facts to try to prove Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason, which was laughable, uneducated and pathetic. TIA shows itself to be a dishonest source of information, where they will twist anything into a smear of the Archbishop. 
    Logged
    Please disregard everything I have said; I have tended to speak before fact checking.

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8901
    • Reputation: +8675/-849
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #2 on: June 22, 2019, 11:29:38 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Mega-fin on June 22, 2019, 11:13:23 AM
    More falsehood. It is a fact that Archbishop Lefebvre signed most of the docuмents, but two he did not. And his reasons for doing so are contained in the biography by Bp Tissier which they like to pick and choose the content they mention! Anyone who has read it and studied his life will know better then these pathetic argument and sterile articles. TIA has slanderously skewed facts to try to prove Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason, which was laughable, uneducated and pathetic. TIA shows itself to be a dishonest source of information, where they will twist anything into a smear of the Archbishop.

    Uneducated? :farmer:

    Hmmm... so, are you contending that theological basis of the Vatican II docuмents are partially Catholic?

    If so, here's a link with an education for you, with endorsements by many prominent (non-SSPX) traditional Catholic writers:LINK

    But the full argumentation Atila Guimaraes made in his 11 Volume set: Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani? (My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?) is likely beyond the scope of this forum.
      
    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8901
    • Reputation: +8675/-849
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #3 on: June 22, 2019, 11:35:55 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Mega-fin on June 22, 2019, 11:13:23 AM
    More falsehood. It is a fact that Archbishop Lefebvre signed most of the docuмents, but two he did not. And his reasons for doing so are contained in the biography by Bp Tissier which they like to pick and choose the content they mention! Anyone who has read it and studied his life will know better then these pathetic argument and sterile articles. TIA has slanderously skewed facts to try to prove Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason, which was laughable, uneducated and pathetic. TIA shows itself to be a dishonest source of information, where they will twist anything into a smear of the Archbishop.


    2nd observation:

    My topic is not about +ABL being a freemason.

    However, the entire basis for Cathinfo's existence must be predicated on the fact that the new SSPX is freemasonic.

    The more accurate question about the SSPX and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ would be: WHEN did the SSPX become freemasonic?  :jester:


    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +249/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #4 on: June 22, 2019, 11:44:37 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Incredulous on June 22, 2019, 11:29:38 AM
    Uneducated? :farmer:

    Hmmm... so, are you contending that theological basis of the Vatican II docuмents are partially Catholic?

    If so, here's a link with an education for you, with endorsements by many prominent (non-SSPX) traditional Catholic writers:LINK

    But the full argumentation Atila Guimaraes made in his 11 Volume set: Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani? (My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?) is likely beyond the scope of this forum.
      
    No, it’s uneducated that they use half truths and misinformation to condemn the man. To state the Chevalier de Notre Dame is some Knights of Our Lady of Sion, a Masonic group is just plain pathetic. To attest that Bp Tissier wrote that +ABL signed V2 docuмents while not listing the rest of the story is putting a definitely slant in the information. To state that the Archbishop celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae is false, to say that he celebrated the 1965 with versus populum is truth. 
    The truth of the matter is that Archbishop Lefebvre was literally involved in EVERYTHING that happened at the Council. Does TIA mention the Coetus fathers who worked tirelessly to combat the errors therein, to correct the texts, to stop the liberal agenda, of which +ABL was at the centre? No! They make it seem as if the story is all cut and dry. They don’t get into the whys, they slant their arguments, twist information. It’s dishonest and to call a man a Freemason based on straw arguments is a sin! 
    There was a time when yes the Archbishop said that the docuмents could be seen in the light of tradition, but of course, TIA jumping on one of his weak points acts as if this was his definitive position. Again, falsehood. One moment in time is not a definitive position held by anyone. How many of us traditionalists now started in the NO thinking we could be good NO, accepting V2 in the light of tradition, etc? And then we learned through the grace of God that we couldn’t. Peoples minds can change. And TIA has shown itself to be calumniating unnecessarily against the Archbishop. A recent article asserted that +ABL’s post 88 position was the Council in the light of tradition, then highlighted the quotes with dates from the early 80’s. Thats just laughable.
    Please, stop wasting our time with ridiculous articles from a dishonest website and let us know if they ever come to see reality. Because this is just pathetic.  
    Logged
    Please disregard everything I have said; I have tended to speak before fact checking.

    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +249/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #5 on: June 22, 2019, 11:52:17 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Incredulous on June 22, 2019, 11:35:55 AM

    2nd observation:

    My topic is not about +ABL being a freemason.

    However, the entire basis for Cathinfo's existence must be predicated on the fact that the new SSPX is freemasonic.

    The more accurate question about the SSPX and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ would be: WHEN did the SSPX become freemasonic?  :jester:
    Yes, and the argument here is about +ABL, not the neoSSPX  :cheers:
    Logged
    Please disregard everything I have said; I have tended to speak before fact checking.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6173
    • Reputation: +3147/-2941
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #6 on: June 22, 2019, 12:23:39 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!2
    • I'm not sure that +ABL, or the SSPX, care enough about (or ever cared about) TIA/TFP to even consider that there might be a rift. The rift is pretty much one-sided, with TIA (Guimares) doing all of the complaining.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

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

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8901
    • Reputation: +8675/-849
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #7 on: June 22, 2019, 01:00:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Mega-fin on June 22, 2019, 11:52:17 AM
    Yes, and the argument here is about +ABL, not the neoSSPX  :cheers:

    And you couldn't answer my questions :jester:
    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8901
    • Reputation: +8675/-849
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #8 on: June 22, 2019, 01:32:52 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Meg on June 22, 2019, 12:23:39 PM
    I'm not sure that +ABL, or the SSPX, care enough about (or ever cared about) TIA/TFP to even consider that there might be a rift. The rift is pretty much one-sided, with TIA (Guimares) doing all of the complaining.


    You're wrong Megster and interestingly you've revealed your limited knowledge of the SSPX.

    The SSPX has always been super-sensitive to criticism of their acceptance of Vatican II.

    Bp. Fellay was rhetorically pummeled by Bishop Williamson when he said he accepted "95%" of the council.

    At SSPX priories as early as 2007, whenever TIA's prolific Catholic articles were mentioned by the laity, SSPX priests would cringe or like you, start spouting calumnies against Dr. Plineo.

    Intellectually, the SSPX has no scholars to theologically argue that the Council docuмents are Catholic.

    In fact, they're so deficient in theological expertise, they must hire the likes of Siscoe & Salza to defend their positions :jester:
    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2784
    • Reputation: +2885/-512
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #9 on: June 22, 2019, 02:02:46 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0


    • Quote
    For a long period Archbishop Lefebvre presented himself within SSPX as not having signed the docuмents of Vatican II. His faithful followers would take offense if anyone supported the opposite, even when presenting solid arguments. However, after an interview of Card. Hoyos in 2008 where he affirmed Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, this internal “dogma” became less secure. Later, the Vatican released photocopies of the conciliar docuмents signed by the French Archbishop, putting to rest that false statement.
     
      Today even the four Bishops of SSPX admit that Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, as Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais stated in his recently published biography on Archbishop Lefebvre.


     
    Is this going to be another ‘he said, she said’ thread? Will it get 10,000 views after 15 pages of back and forth? Or can the matter be settled in few words?  Hopefully, the latter.

     
    >Was Card. Hoyos telling the truth or wasn’t he?

     
    >Did the Vatican release photo copies of the signed docuмent, or didn’t they?

     
    >Did ABL ever maintain that he had not signed the docuмents? Did AbL make a false statement, or didn’t he?

     
    >Is TIA misrepresenting the facts? How?

     
    >Did the four sspx bishops admit that ABL signed all the docuмents, or didn’t they?

     
    Why should it be so difficult to supply simple answers to simple questions. .
    Logged

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #10 on: June 22, 2019, 04:16:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Incredulous on June 22, 2019, 11:29:38 AM
    … are you contending that [the] theological basis of the Vatican II docuмents are [is] partially Catholic? …

    It could hardly be plainer that the "partially Catholic" basis of the Vatican II docuмents is the precise factor that renders those docuмents an especially grave and proximate danger to the Faith and to the faithful.

    Quote
    … as Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais stated in his recently published biography on Archbishop Lefebvre …

    As Bishop Tissier's biography was published in 2002, the word "recently" reveals the remarkable duration of Guimarães's animus toward Archbishop Lefebvre, an animus that has shown no sign of yielding to hard facts or probative testimony to the contrary. Even more curious—at least to those not entirely convinced of his genius—is the near-dogmatic reverence some readers extend to this unstable individual, a man whose wild swings from unhinged mania to surprising insight and back again frequently suggest the gyrations of a pendulum exposed to a thunderstorm.
    Logged

    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +249/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #11 on: June 22, 2019, 05:24:15 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Incredulous on June 22, 2019, 01:32:52 PM

    You're wrong Megster and interestingly you've revealed your limited knowledge of the SSPX.

    The SSPX has always been super-sensitive to criticism of their acceptance of Vatican II.

    Bp. Fellay was rhetorically pummeled by Bishop Williamson when he said he accepted "95%" of the council.

    At SSPX priories as early as 2007, whenever TIA's prolific Catholic articles were mentioned by the laity, SSPX priests would cringe or like you, start spouting calumnies against Dr. Plineo.

    Intellectually, the SSPX has no scholars to theologically argue that the Council docuмents are Catholic.

    In fact, they're so deficient in theological expertise, they must hire the likes of Siscoe & Salza to defend their positions :jester:
    You didn’t read anything I said. I never defended the SSPX or said that V2 was Catholic and I certainly never agreed to Bp Fellay and his 95 thesis! I align with the Resistance and with Archbishop Lefebvre (on a Resistance forum nonetheless!). The actions of the new Society are their own and I don’t defend them. You put words in my mouth and accuse ... just like the TIA you love so dearly. What a waste of time!
    Logged
    Please disregard everything I have said; I have tended to speak before fact checking.

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2784
    • Reputation: +2885/-512
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #12 on: June 22, 2019, 08:08:10 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • Here we go again. The topic, viz the letter from the TIA Correspondence desk: Are its assertions correct or mistaken?

    Did Card. Hoyos assert correctly that ABL had signed all 16 docuмents? Did the four SSPX bishops actually admit that this assertion was correct, and apparently confirmed in Bp. Tissier’s in biography of ABL?

    I care nothing at this point about the alleged Masonic affiliations of ABL. That charge is not even mentioned, much less developed, in Guimares’ letter.
    Logged

    Offline Kolar

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 81
    • Reputation: +52/-22
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #13 on: June 23, 2019, 06:49:35 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Is it not true that Bishop de Castro Meyer, after co-founding TFP with Pliny was after a few years obliged to condemn the organization and distance himself from it because of Pliny's bizarre behavior, e.g, anti-clericalism, leading to his taking onto himself some of the roles of a priest, e.g., blessing the members, promoting devotion to his own mother, ?

    Because of their anti-clericalism the TFP are interested in social justice, but not in the Mass and the sacraments. Protestants were the first to think that sacrifice was not necessary. Without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there is no remission of sins.

    The first fruits of Archbishop Thuc is the schismatic church of El Palmar de Troya.
    Secondary fruits are numerous sede-vacantist bishops and their followers.

    To suggest that Archbishop Lefebvre is a Freemason is calumny.
    Logged

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8901
    • Reputation: +8675/-849
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fundamental crux of the longstanding rift between +ABL and TIA
    « Reply #14 on: June 23, 2019, 05:09:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: hollingsworth on June 22, 2019, 02:02:46 PM
    Is this going to be another ‘he said, she said’ thread? Will it get 10,000 views after 15 pages of back and forth? Or can the matter be settled in few words?  Hopefully, the latter.

     
    >Was Card. Hoyos telling the truth or wasn’t he?

     
    >Did the Vatican release photo copies of the signed docuмent, or didn’t they?

     
    >Did ABL ever maintain that he had not signed the docuмents? Did AbL make a false statement, or didn’t he?

     
    >Is TIA misrepresenting the facts? How?

     
    >Did the four sspx bishops admit that ABL signed all the docuмents, or didn’t they?

     
    Why should it be so difficult to supply simple answers to simple questions. .

    Holly, thanks for clearing the air here.

    SSPX supporters and many +ABL devotees on this Resistance forum, don't want to go there,
    because they know the answers are:

    1. Yes, Card. Hoyos told the truth, this time.
    2. The Vatican did release copies.
    3. +ABL admitted he signed, but then rescinded his signature.
    4. TIA didn't misrepresent the facts.
    5. The four Bishops acknowledged the signing and the rescinding of the docs.

    Even if +ABL did this and even if he said the Novus ordo missae, it could be classified under our fallen human nature.
    He could have easily repented and picked himself back-up to lead the battle.  
    Atila's is just using +ABL's mistakes as a devil's advocate might do when debating canonization worthiness.

    The simple topic point I've apparently failed to make is:

    The crux of the rift between the SSPX and TIA is that the former organization thinks Vatican II is partially based on Catholic theology and therefore salvageable and the latter organization does not.


    Logged
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi
    Pages: [1] 2 3
    « previous next »