“Pit of filth and gutter of sewage?”
How is this imitating the wonderful example of Archbishop Lefebvre?
18:16
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yL1PjsfB_Kc&si=RrmzbwnGpZCceg-A
“Pit of filth and gutter of sewage?”
15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican
Now we see a priest hating lay people.Hating lay people with knowledge of the skeletons in the closet perhaps?
If Fr H is mad about comments made on this site when he asked +W for holy oils...I thought he got a fair shake.
FYI, when Fr. Hewko just left Fr. Pfeiffer's group, there was a discussion on here about him.
I bet someone could find it.
I think I stated at the time that Fr. Hewko owed us an apology. Not ME personally, but rather the hundreds of CathInfo members he had slandered in the past.
But in light of the sermon above, it appears he is doubling-down on his old stance. His rhetoric of late is worse than when he was part of Fr. Pfeiffer's cult. Sad!
He's NOT going in the right direction.
Gotta give the benefactors what they demand:
If the anti-Williamsonism dried up, so would the donations.
It’s their only raison d’etre.
I'm just curious about whether Father Hewko was actually able to create some kind of rift between +Williamson and +Faure, as he claimed he did, or whether there was some misrepresentation there. Father Hewko made it seem as though his new NH seminary has the support of +Faure and (indirectly) +Zendejas.
Father Hewko is but one unsettled case in the SSPX Resistance chaos.
I blame Bp. Williamson’s Resistance plan of de-centralization and lack of hierarchy for the inevitable break-up and alienation of trad alliances and friendships.
When the Resistance started in 2012, we had a common foe, Bp. Fellay and Menzingen’s judaized, rebranded SSPX.
There was hope of gaining critical mass and carrying on a coherent, nimble and scrappy fight. We had the materials to ordain priests and keep friendly TLM chapels reinforced.
But when +W declined to take up the fight and settled on writing EC’s, an instant leadership vacuum was created.
There was no rule, little direction or self discipline, allowing for “Jim Jones” apostolates like Pablo-Pfeifferville to arise. Or for the NeoSSPX to suck up independent chapels by the dozens.
Father Hewko naively walked into the Pfeifferville warlock’s lair and was overcome by Santeria spells and curses.
He is likely still suffering from the occult effects, and angrily denies CI’s discussions of it.
But a true Catholic resistance would offer Father Hewko some recourse, some way of rehabilitation. Perhaps he needs a de-briefing, re-formation and maybe an exorcism?
It would be unwise to fully reject or discard such a priest.
Father’s dilemma is a product of Resistance chaos… not Catholic order.
I blame Bp. Williamson’s Resistance plan of de-centralization and lack of hierarchy for the inevitable break-up and alienation of trad alliances and friendships.I have a certain sympathy for what you are saying, Incredulous, I think many of us thought that way in the beginning.
Do you think that +W could have prevented what happened at Pfeifferville, by being more organized and hierarchical (authoritative?)? I suppose that's a possibility, but I'm not sure that Fr. Pfeiffer wanted to have any authority over him. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
But a true Catholic resistance would offer Father Hewko some recourse, some way of rehabilitation. Perhaps he needs a de-briefing, re-formation and maybe an exorcism?If Fr Hewko wanted rehab, he could get help. He's a grown man. And God would help him. Whatever problems you assume he has, it's not +W's fault, or anyone else's.
It would be unwise to fully reject or discard such a priest.
Father’s dilemma is a product of Resistance chaos… not Catholic order.
Father Hewko is but one unsettled case in the SSPX Resistance chaos.
I blame Bp. Williamson’s Resistance plan of de-centralization and lack of hierarchy for the inevitable break-up and alienation of trad alliances and friendships.
When the Resistance started in 2012, we had a common foe, Bp. Fellay and Menzingen’s judaized, rebranded SSPX.
There was hope of gaining critical mass and carrying on a coherent, nimble and scrappy fight. We had the materials to ordain priests and keep friendly TLM chapels reinforced.
But when +W declined to take up the fight and settled on writing EC’s, an instant leadership vacuum was created.
There was no rule, little direction or self discipline, allowing for “Jim Jones” apostolates like Pablo-Pfeifferville to arise. Or for the NeoSSPX to suck up independent chapels by the dozens.
Father Hewko naively walked into the Pfeifferville warlock’s lair and was overcome by Santeria spells and curses.
He is likely still suffering from the occult effects, and angrily denies CI’s discussions of it.
But a true Catholic resistance would offer Father Hewko some recourse, some way of rehabilitation. Perhaps he needs a de-briefing, re-formation and maybe an exorcism?
It would be unwise to fully reject or discard such a priest.
Father’s dilemma is a product of Resistance chaos… not Catholic order.
I have a certain sympathy for what you are saying, Incredulous, I think many of us thought that way in the beginning.
However, I think it is a mistaken view.
I don't believe it would have prevented the Fr Pfeiffer scandal, and Bishop Williamson knew what he was dealing with here long before it became public, as Fr Chazal attests.
Look at the SAJM, that wonderful venture of Bishop Faure. It didn't prevent division... Frs Rioult/Pinaud, Da Silva, Ballini...
Consider Archbishop Lefebvre's own Society... a history of division. Indeed it is the history of the Catholic Church...
The evils usually come down to individuals preferring their own ideas, even to the point of making them dogma.
It is not for us to judge Bishop Williamson in such a matter. God alone knows what should have been done. But BW, like every single one of us, must be docile to the inspirations of the Holy Ghost - the fruit of the first Joyful Mystery of the Rosary. God's ways are not our ways.
No.
According to +Zendejas, +Faure says Fr. Hewko exaggerated the words cited by him, and that +Faure would not support any projects of Fr. Hewko.
Fr. Trincado adds that the essential part of the conversation between Fr. Hewko and +Faure, was that +Faure directed Fr. Hewko to discuss any matters with +Zendejas (ie., Basically functioning as North American District Superior).
I'm just curious about whether Father Hewko was actually able to create some kind of rift between +Williamson and +Faure, as he claimed he did, or whether there was some misrepresentation there. Father Hewko made it seem as though his new NH seminary has the support of +Faure and (indirectly) +Zendejas.No, he didn’t, and no, it doesn’t. ~From one in the know.
I blame Bp. Williamson’s Resistance plan of de-centralization and lack of hierarchy for the inevitable break-up and alienation of trad alliances and friendships.Please don’t pin the chaos on +Bp. W. The reason he declined to take leadership was because he was wise enough to foresee it in embryo form. Way back in 2012, he held a retreat for priests at OLMC and saw the handwriting on the wall. A certain individual was already in residence at that time and various attempts were made against His Excellency taking up authority. The weed seeds were already planted, and not by the bishop. What’s we’ve seen the last decade is them sprouting and growing. Now, we see blossoms and soon enough, there will be rotten fruit. How very appropriate was Sunday’s gospel, the wheat and the tares!
Father Hewko naively walked into the Pfeifferville warlock’s lair and was overcome by Santeria spells and curses.
He is likely still suffering from the occult effects, and angrily denies CI’s discussions of it.
But a true Catholic resistance would offer Father Hewko some recourse, some way of rehabilitation. Perhaps he needs a de-briefing, re-formation and maybe an exorcism.
When we were connected with OLMC, we could tell Fr Hewko's mental state by his hair. When he let it grow into "devil curls" his behaviors were questionable and confusing. When he cut it, the fog had lifted and he distanced himself from the warlock. Even his very countenance changed.:confused: Naw! He was just being a typical guy who didn’t want to admit to male pattern balding! But finally, like most men, he saw it was useless and cut them off. I suppose, though, that can be a form of pride or vanity.
Reading the salty responses in this thread one would think Fr. Hewko insulted the Lyceum itself when the forum he was referring to is a <moderated>All it means is that the salt has not lost its savor! 🧂
There’s also a secret history I won’t aire about why the SAJM finally formed, but it was not something Williamson initially supported.Tantalizing...
:confused: Naw! He was just being a typical guy who didn’t want to admit to male pattern balding! But finally, like most men, he saw it was useless and cut them off. I suppose, though, that can be a form of pride or vanity.I thought you were associated with SSPV? I would have never taken you for a Hewko apologist.
Besides, the all-bald look is “in” right now, especially for exorcists! Fr. Amorth accidentally started a fad!
If Fr Hewko wanted rehab, he could get help. He's a grown man. And God would help him. Whatever problems you assume he has, it's not +W's fault, or anyone else's.
If +W had created an SSPX Resistance structure instead of decentralizing and allowing for a leadership vacuum, there would be a Resistance managing team of priests and laity to assist Fr. Hewko.
This Resistance team would also help organize and sustain independent chapels, raise funds, etc., instead of letting the SSPX take the real estate for free.
If +W had created an SSPX Resistance structure instead of decentralizing and allowing for a leadership vacuum, there would be a Resistance managing team of priests and laity to assist Fr. Hewko.No one isolated Fr Hewko, he isolated himself. What would have been different if he were in a Society? Would he have agreed to be silent on the issues in question?
Indeed, Matthew, there you have it! 100%!
And even a 1/10 scale model of the SSPX would pale in comparison to "what they have" by staying in the SSPX. So don't kid yourself. Those who left for principles, the Faith, dogmatic reasons (the current Resistance) would have left either way. And those who stayed for "practical" reasons would still have stayed in the SSPX
Bishop Williamson deserves nothing but our praise and thanks. The lone faithful bishop who has given us 'Operation Survival II'... and III and IV and... what number are we up to now :-) We shall miss him when he is gone, he will leave a big void.
Stop blaming +Williamson for the Crisis in the Church II: The Next Phase. It's not his fault.
I think all the independent priests WANTED/WANT to be independent.
Your idea that there would be a flourishing SSPX II "if only Bishop Williamson had thought differently" has numerous problems:
1. If creating an SSPX II were meant to be, i.e., there were enough Resistant priests willing to work under a bishop and/or group, then SOMEONE would have stepped in to fill the leadership void by now. Bp. Zendejas, for example.
2. If Bp. Williamson is responsible for the would-be "substantial Resistance group" disbanding and dispersing, then WHERE ARE THEY NOW? You're not claiming +Williamson killed them or caused them to abandon their vocation or something, so where are they now? Where are all these Resistant priests who sighed and went off on their own reluctantly because of +Williamson?
The "structured" Resistance under Bp. Zendejas for example is as big as it ever was going to be. You can't create priests out of thin air. The SSPX II just wasn't meant to happen. It's a different time than back in the 70's. Right now we're talking about a remnant of a remnant. Eventually it gets too small to have a District House, Book Publishing company, Retreat Center, College like at St. Mary's, large 100-capacity seminary, etc. You can't keep LITERALLY decimating (lopping zeroes off, making something 1/10th as big) a group and still maintain those things.
Your last sentence has me scratching my head. There aren't enough people to do "fundraising". There are barely enough supporters to support the handful of chapels there are. And what properties are the SSPX picking up for free? I wasn't aware of any free properties for the taking. And besides, even if there were, what could anyone do about it? Without enough priests to serve the chapels, they're going to stay "available" for the first priest (or group) who comes along.
And why wouldn't one of these "orphaned" forced-to-be-Independent priests end up with this free real estate instead of the SSPX? Your accusations don't even add up or make sense.
Stop blaming +Williamson for the Crisis in the Church II: The Next Phase. It's not his fault.
What could have been, now will never be. But there was a time of grace which was missed.
So...God's will has been defeated you're saying? Give me a break!
"Could have been" and "What if" are the devil's 2 favorite phrases. You know that, right?
God could raise up children to Abraham TODAY if He wanted to. No one thwart's God's will. Or his overall Providence and plan for the world, for the history of mankind.
Keep in mind this whole CRISIS is on God's timetable. It will end precisely when God intends it to. He is fully in control.
You're saying there could have been an SSPX II if only we had a bishop who wanted to try that. But some human being (priest, bishop) would have stepped up and filled the void -- if that had been God's will. Are you saying +Williamson was *that* special? He's just a bishop. There are other bishops. And even more priests -- who could be consecrated validly in due time. There are plenty of valid bishops and priests in the world of Tradition.
I support +Williamson as much as anyone -- but I disagree that he was "our only hope, and he blew it!"
I think all the independent priests WANTED/WANT to be independent.
Your idea that there would be a flourishing SSPX II "if only Bishop Williamson had thought differently" has numerous problems:
1. If creating an SSPX II were meant to be, i.e., there were enough Resistant priests willing to work under a bishop and/or group, then SOMEONE would have stepped in to fill the leadership void by now. Bp. Zendejas, for example.
2. If Bp. Williamson is responsible for the would-be "substantial Resistance group" disbanding and dispersing, then WHERE ARE THEY NOW? You're not claiming +Williamson killed them or caused them to abandon their vocation or something, so where are they now? Where are all these Resistant priests who sighed and went off on their own reluctantly because of +Williamson?
The "structured" Resistance under Bp. Zendejas for example is as big as it ever was going to be. You can't create priests out of thin air. The SSPX II just wasn't meant to happen. It's a different time than back in the 70's. Right now we're talking about a remnant of a remnant. Eventually it gets too small to have a District House, Book Publishing company, Retreat Center, College like at St. Mary's, large 100-capacity seminary, etc. You can't keep LITERALLY decimating (lopping zeroes off, making something 1/10th as big) a group and still maintain those things.
Your last sentence has me scratching my head. There aren't enough people to do "fundraising". There are barely enough supporters to support the handful of chapels there are. And what properties are the SSPX picking up for free? I wasn't aware of any free properties for the taking. And besides, even if there were, what could anyone do about it? Without enough priests to serve the chapels, they're going to stay "available" for the first priest (or group) who comes along.
And why wouldn't one of these "orphaned" forced-to-be-Independent priests end up with this free real estate instead of the SSPX? Your accusations don't even add up or make sense.
Stop blaming +Williamson for the Crisis in the Church II: The Next Phase. It's not his fault.
I certainly had your vision in the early years, Sean.
It was a lose-lose position to be put in, and the cause of it was that+Williamson did not want what we wanted (and needed): A congregation, with all the structure, seminary, hierarchy, and stability which come with it.
So...God's will has been soundly and decisively defeated you're saying? Give me a break! And we're not talking about missed graces for an individual, some merit for heaven lost due to wasting time -- but the destiny of His very Church and millions of souls that was at stake. You think He's going to allow His will to be defeated?By the same token, Matthew, there is God's antecedent Will, and then there is His consequent Will.
If +W had created an SSPX Resistance structure instead of decentralizing and allowing for a leadership vacuum, there would be a Resistance managing team of priests and laity to assist Fr. Hewko.Fr Hewko could've joined the Resistance long ago, but he went with Fr Pfeiffer. He made a bad choice. He could obviously join the Resistance now, but (for reasons unknown) he has not, whether by his own choice or by the choice of others.
I certainly had your vision in the early years, Sean.
However, as the years have gone by I am more inclined to believe that Bishop Williamson was more likely to have been inspired by God in his actions than I was in my opinions!
I think all the independent priests WANTED/WANT to be independent.There's lots of reasons for this:
I wrote to him asking him about the Resistance, and he responded that these priests running around without superiors was a public scandal. I followed up to plead our case, and was told to never contact him again.Yes, I'm with you Sean, and thank you for all those details.
How many priests like him might have jumped aboard, if only there was some kind of structure and hierarchy to receive them?
Yes, I'm with you Sean, and thank you for all those details.
But how sad is that about Fr Gaudray?
The situation is what it is, for each and everyone of us. Even if there was no Resistance Society to receive priests at the time, happily there is now with the SAJM.
After Vatican II there was no traditional society for resisting priests to jump into, they stood up for the faith and the liturgy and suffered the consequences... yes, "independence"! All those hero priests to whom we owe so much.
Archbishop Lefebvre never considered them a public scandal... quite the contrary. They were an edifying testimony. He never required them to join his Society when it got going, though many chose to.
It is a shame more SSPX priests did not have the same convictions. Some were prepared to resist, but only so far, and then... silence. Bishop Huonder... silence. Where is the greater scandal?
A priest, or anyone else, can think whatever they like about what Bishop Williamson should have done. But more importantly for them, what should they have done? Resist IF...?
Perhaps the Good Lord was selecting out those prepared for martyrdom.
But how sad is that about Fr Gaudray?
The situation is what it is, for each and everyone of us. Even if there was no Resistance Society to receive priests at the time, happily there is now with the SAJM.
After Vatican II there was no traditional society for resisting priests to jump into, they stood up for the faith and the liturgy and suffered the consequences... yes, "independence"! All those hero priests to whom we owe so much.
Archbishop Lefebvre never considered them a public scandal... quite the contrary. They were an edifying testimony. He never required them to join his Society when it got going, though many chose to.
You make very good points here.
Fr. Gaudray was my spiritual director. I chose him because he seemed like a good spiritual guide, and I wasn't wrong. I would choose him again. He reminded me of the Cure of Ars, of whom there was a painting I saw in the stairwell on the way to attend spiritual direction with Fr. Gaudray each week.
But you are correct -- Archbishop Lefebvre didn't consider the Resistants to be "scandalous" in the early 70s. Remember, there was no worldwide organization from day one! That came later. And even then, the Archbishop didn't cry "scandal" if any given priest CHOSE not to join the SSPX -- perhaps because he didn't have that particular vocation/charism? Being a priest and being an SSPX priest are two different vocations. And +ABL CERTAINLY didn't bind priests under pain of sin to join the SSPX or else be "a scandalous vagus".
No, before +Fellay's second term the SSPX was quite tolerant of Independent priests -- but they worked WITH the SSPX. They were called "friends of the Society".
As I've said before, it's not valid to say "We called first dibs". Whether you're talking about the State of Necessity which justifies consecrating a bishop without Papal Mandate, to save Tradition -- or talking about being an independent priest. Just because the SSPX already exists (while they didn't in the 70's) doesn't mean you're FORCED to join it now. It doesn't work that way. It's not "first dibs" or "king of the mountain". If being independent was legitimate in 1969, it's legitimate today. And if +ABL committed no sin on June 30, 1988, you also can't criticize Bp. McKenna for consecrating, say, Bp. Frank Slupski in the 1990s. Sure, the SSPX bishops "seem" more legit because their groups are large, their ceremonies lavish, and their bank accounts flush with cash. But that doesn't grant them jurisdiction or any bonus legitimacy. They are fundamentally the same, canonically speaking and before God, as any validly ordained, emergency Trad "garage bishop".
That it was a huge dissuasion to otherwise resistance-minded SSPX clergy is exemplified by a letter I received from Fr. Thierry Gaudray (i.e., my former seminary professor in Winona, and one of the 7 French deans who opposed the SSPX's acceptance of Cardinal Muller's 2017 marriage guidelines. He also refused to attend Cardinal Brandmuller's visit to Flavigny, for which he was summoned to Menzingen. He also wrote a paper against +Fellay's ridiculous response to the Three Bishops, for which he was again scolded):This sounds to me like he was MILES away from the possibility of an SSPX II. He gave you one reason, but telling you to 'drop it' means he had many more.
I wrote to him asking him about the Resistance, and he responded that these priests running around without superiors was a public scandal. I followed up to plead our case, and was told to never contact him again.
Back when +ABL was alive, outside of a handful of cities (ie St Mary’s), 90% of sspx priests operated just like independent priests. They took care of a chapel, or two, and did it alone. Practically, there’s no difference except for a few times a year when they went on retreats or had a break in the summer.
Well, the difference would be that, although Lefebvre worked with many independent priests, he never once ordained (much less consecrated) anyone for an independent apostolate (and refused to do so on several occasions).Perhaps Msgr. Lefebvre should have ordained vagus priests. It seems his Grace was too hopeful that the Crisis would be resolved before the end of the 20th century, and so, whilst laying aside some portions of canon law in order to address the emergency situation, did not set aside other canons that could have been ignored out of grave necessity.
Wouldn't that go against the idea of SSPX priests living in community in their respective priories?
Priests living alone for an extended period of time may produce outcomes like Fr. Hewko.
I know that many would like their priests to function like ordinary parish priests (with 1 priest per chapel/church) but the SSPX wasn't founded by the Archbishop with such an intention.I'm not saying it was. I'm not even saying the 1 priest for 1 chapel is a desired outcome. I'm just saying it's been done plenty of times in the past 50 years and it can be done again. It's not some enormous challenge that can't be handled or overcome.
Any Catholic chat board can become a potential "gutter of sewage." If some guy posts a phonographic image, the moderator catches it late, then a rumor starts, "Cathinfo allows porn..." Fr Hewko was a little sore about something posted on Cathinfo, and made a generalization about some particular thing which displeased him. It is not the most logical comment, but priests and bishops are allowed some latitude in their sermons. The "Resistance" is really a collection of priests of bishops and priests on the run, and we cannot expect polished oratory at every turn.
I thought you were associated with SSPV? I would have never taken you for a Hewko apologist.No, I’m not a Hewko apologist! I was trying inject some humor, but hopefully, you recognized it. Am I “associated” with the SSPV? Not really. But I sometimes attend Mass at an SSPV chapel. I’m listen to What Catholics Believe online because I find Fr. Jenkins’ views quite reasonable and his explanations and demeanor to reflect a Catholic spirit.
Lefebvre worked with independent priests who were refugees from the conciliar church, not with those ordained to independent apostolates (and the fact that he never ordained any such priests was not accidental).I agree wholeheartedly.
No, I’m not a Hewko apologist! I was trying inject some humor, but hopefully, you recognized it. Am I “associated” with the SSPV? Not really. But I sometimes attend Mass at an SSPV chapel. I’m listen to What Catholics Believe online because I find Fr. Jenkins’ views quite reasonable and his explanations and demeanor to reflect a Catholic spirit.Father Jenkins is one of the best things on the internet.
I agree wholeheartedly.
My comments were directed more at the example you gave of Fr G, who might have been a refugee from the SSPX!
But is what Bishop Williamson has done really against the constitution of the Church as you noted before?
Archbishop Lefebvre had a Society to ordain priests for, and it was the closest thing to a diocesan priest as could be had under the circuмstances, and then there was a choice of religious communities faithful to Tradition. Rightly he refused to ordain priests who wanted to be a law unto themselves.
However, could it not be argued that the crisis has advanced to another level? Must Bishop Williamson erect a Society to accept all the candidates he ordains and consecrates? Perhaps the state of the Church and world being what they now are, the situation is more like to times of persecution? Could not the state of necessity justify all the means necessary to continue to spread the Faith and minister to souls? Is one large traditional stronghold like the SSPX of old the only solution, the best solution?
There still exists the moral authority of the Bishop over those he ordains, and perhaps it is difficult to ask for much more under the current circuмstances. They are certainly ordained for a specific resistance apostolate, even if not for some order of the Church.
Likewise, he consecrates bishops who in turn establish little churches everywhere they are required to continue to spread the Faith and give us the means of salvation.
If you think I am writing these lines to defend Bishop Williamson, I am! Because I don't know the answers, I don't think it's dogma, and I believe Bishop Williamson is more likely to know than I what is required, and what is in-keeping with his mission as a successor of the Apostles. I might not have written so ten years ago...
I believe Lefebvre’s organization of the apostolate is the correct and Catholic approach, not Thuc’s.
What was wrong with Thuc's approach, fundamentally?Nothing. It's pure preference.
That's not the situation at all. And that doesn't excuse Fr. Hewko one bit.I am with you Matthew, it sure seems like a case of slander to me. The definition of slander is to say "untrue and hurtful things publicly," and what Fr. Hewko said seems to meet this definition. It is really a case of libel, since Cathinfo is a quasi-public forum, and Fr. said these things in a sermon, which is to be taken as a public statement. Some lawyers will argue that libel, from the Latin 'Liber,' book, is something written, and will distinguish between libel and slander. My guess is that Fr. probably spoke, apparently, in a moment of passion. Hopefully he will apologize, as most of us who have spent a good deal of time on Cathinfo know that what he alleges is not true.
First of all, what space aliens are you talking about, who would act that way? That's not even how it works. Nor have I heard any cases of that. Every time a forum has been credibly accused of being a morass of filth or liberalism (Fisheaters for example, supporting non-married men and women living together, or defending transsɛҳuąƖs and referring to them by their "new" gender) it was QUITE blatant and the "offensive content" lasted much longer than 1 or 2 hours -- and was quite numerous to boot.
In the scheme of things, a single pornographic image being posted on a good forum or platform -- one with a policy against such filth -- will be a flash in the pan, a statistical aberration, lasting only moments. No one runs with that and turns it into a bad reputation for a forum. I've never heard of this happening once.
It's like saying a solid, widespread, timeless stereotype can exist without ANY basis in fact. No. Just no.
Everyone "gets" the concept of Content Moderation. That is not something new. If I hear that X website (with USER GENERATED CONTENT) had something bad, and it's gone hours later, you write it off as "I guess the moderators got to it. Must not be allowed there. Good." and that's something we observe every day on countless websites.
I don't care how bad the Crisis is, how few priests there are, what level of training he's had, there is no excuse for slander against good Traditional Catholics. He doesn't need to lie. You don't just "oops" slip into a mortal sin. If you could, it wouldn't be a mortal sin.
We're not looking for "polished oratory". I don't care how down-to-earth or off-the-cuff a sermon is. But I do expect it to contain TRUTH and not various sins of the tongue within it. That's not too much to ask.
What was wrong with Thuc's approach, fundamentally?
It is in direct contradiction to the hierarchical constitution of the Church.
Um... you do know that +ABL did the same thing in 1988, don't you? He consecrated FOUR bishops WITHOUT papal mandate. Zero permission was given by the Pope for that action. Which is REQUIRED. Normally, under normal circuмstances.
The SSPX is in the same canonical status as any Thuc-line independent priest offering Sunday Mass for 50 people in a converted trailer. Just that the SSPX is on a much larger SCALE, with many more parishioners, enough real estate to make our Old Testament brethren jealous, and a bigger bank account (again, the Red Sea Pedestrians are jealous).
But canonically there is literally no difference between their respective apostolates. Both are operating with no official jurisdiction, outside Church hierarchy and authority, with supplied jurisdiction on account of the unprecedented Crisis in the Church.
Imagine that: The brand-new St. Mary's church, or St. Isidores (a full church built by the SSPX) with hundreds of parishioners, EXACTLY THE SAME STATUS as some independent priest saying Mass for 20 people in a hotel room. Kind of humbling, isn't it?
Just saying.
Seems difficult to start talking about authority, jurisdiction, and hierarchy OUTSIDE AND ALOOF FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AUTHORITY STRUCTURES without sounding, oh, I don't know ...schismatic.
See, the world of Tradition has always had a more humble pose, talking only about supplied jurisdiction. But the downside is: everyone is equal.
I remember sitting at table with Father Peter Scott and Father Kenneth Novak at the Regina Caeli House (which was then the District headquarters). We were listening to something during a meal, and the (non-Trad) speaker mentioned how SSPX are disobedience.
The bishops Lefebvre consecrated operated within an hierarchical "congregation."But it's even a real congregation. There are no religious vows and the leadership has no strict demand of obedience, nor the members any duty to give such. Members can technically leave anytime they want. It's not a religious organization, but simply an "association" where people voluntarily agree to abide by rules.
So what kind of replacement "hierarchical congregation" besides, you know, the CATHOLIC CHURCH HIERARCHY, qualifies as enough to make it legitimate and moral?Great post.
What traits must it have before it qualifies?
Is it a 501.3 (c) that gives legitimacy? Would having this IRS non-profit status change the moral situation of a priest offering Mass outside normal ecclesiastical structures and authority? Or perhaps some other government form you fill out?
What if an independent priest works with a trad bishop of some kind, albeit very loosely and doesn't see him on a regular basis? Does the priest have to attend official yearly Priest Meetings at an ex-Dominican Novitiate building in, say, Winona MN to be in a legitimate "hierarchical" situation?
Does the priest's superior have to give him 3 significant commands a year to establish this hierarchical situation, or what?
Or does the replacement Church hierarchy pretty much have to be called "SSPX" to be legitimate?
Condemned:
3453 Dz 2053 53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable, but Christian society, like human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.
Condemned error of the modernists about the Church, revelation, Christ and the sacraments [From the Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, of July 3, 1907]
Red herring:
It is not the lack of papal mandate which is at issue, but an organization of the apostolate opposed to the hierarchical constitution of the Church.
The bishops Lefebvre consecrated operated within an hierarchical "congregation."
While we're posting things that have nothing to do with anything or anyone in this thread:
The Sixth Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery"
Seriously, Sean? Where in this thread did ANYONE utter any Modernism similar to "The Church has/is/will evolve, or needs to evolve, or is expected to evolve"?
No one suggested ANY KIND of mutability for the Church.
But the hierarchical congregation of the SSPX is not part of the hierarchical constitution of the Church. The constitution of the Church consists of lawfully established apostolic or episcopal sees in union with the Apostolic See of Rome. The Society is not an episcopal see at all and it never was. It was founded as a pious union (essentially a lay organization) under the authority of the diocese of Fibourg, but it even lost that status in 1975. So, the SSPX might be a hierarchical congregation, but it is not part of the hierarchical constitution of the Catholic Church. I agree with Matthew that the SSPX vis-a-vis the divine constitution of the Church is no different than the independent Thuc groups.
But the hierarchical congregation of the SSPX is not part of the hierarchical constitution of the Church. The constitution of the Church consists of lawfully established apostolic or episcopal sees in union with the Apostolic See of Rome. The Society is not an episcopal see at all and it never was. It was founded as a pious union (essentially a lay organization) under the authority of the diocese of Fibourg, but it even lost that status in 1975. So, the SSPX might be a hierarchical congregation, but it is not part of the hierarchical constitution of the Catholic Church. I agree with Matthew that the SSPX vis-a-vis the divine constitution of the Church is no different than the independent Thuc groups.
John-
You are talking about legality.
I am talking about the hierarchical constitution of the Church.
In the long history of the Church, we find several notable examples manifesting extraordinary episcopal power (eg., Athanasius, Eusebius, et al, ordaining priests and consecrating bishops to supply for the needs of the faithful).
But what we do not see, ever, is the consecration and ordination of vagus independents.
If you will then retort, “What diocese or congregation were/are SSPX or Resistance priests/bishops incardinated into?” I will respond, “They are incardinated into their own various congregations via supplied jurisdiction (which endows a priest and bishop with all that is necessary to supply for the needs of the apostolate).”
Conversely, one ordained or consecrated as an independent is incardinated into nothing (rejecting the hierarchical constitution of the Church).
But the hierarchical congregation of the SSPX is not part of the hierarchical constitution of the Church. The constitution of the Church consists of lawfully established apostolic or episcopal sees in union with the Apostolic See of Rome. The Society is not an episcopal see at all and it never was. It was founded as a pious union (essentially a lay organization) under the authority of the diocese of Fibourg, but it even lost that status in 1975. So, the SSPX might be a hierarchical congregation, but it is not part of the hierarchical constitution of the Catholic Church. I agree with Matthew that the SSPX vis-a-vis the divine constitution of the Church is no different than the independent Thuc groups.The SSPX is indeed part of the hierarchical constitution of the Church. It is a "society of the common life without vows". To say that it is essentially a lay organisation, a pious union, is simplistic to say the least. Read the study by the canonist, Fr Glover, here: https://sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx
The constitution of the Church is essentially hierarchical.:facepalm: The US Army is also hierarchical, and so is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. So is european soccer. I guess all these fulfill the "essential" aspects of the Church, therefore they are part of it. :facepalm:
Do you differentiate between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church? It sounds like you might not believe that there's such a thing as a conciliar church.
So the last part of this wasn't included in the post. Father Kenneth Novak protested aloud that "we're not in disobedience." To which, I responded, "Of course we are." So both Father Novak and I looked at Father Peter Scott to referee our disagreement. After about 30 seconds of silence, he blurts out loud (in typical Father Peter Scott fashion) "We are." and then he starts in with his very distinct laugh.Hilarious! Fr Scott is every caricaturist's dream!
Well, the Catholic Church before Vatican II is the same organization as the "Conciliar Church" after Vatican II. Same governing structure, same diocese, same parish churches, same seminaries, etc. If organization that was the true Church before Vatican II became a new false Church after Vatican II, the gates of hell would have prevailed. The Church is in a crisis, but the organization is still the same Church. It couldn't be otherwise.
The SSPX is indeed part of the hierarchical constitution of the Church. It is a "society of the common life without vows". To say that it is essentially a lay organisation, a pious union, is simplistic to say the least. Read the study by the canonist, Fr Glover, here: https://sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx
Decree of erection for the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (November 1, 1970)
Given the encouragements expressed by the Second Vatican Council, in the decree Optatum Totius (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_optatam-totius_en.html), concerning international seminaries and the distribution of the clergy;
Given the urgent necessity for the formation of zealous and generous priests conforming to the directives of the cited decree;
Confirming that the Statutes of the Priestly Society correspond to its goals:
We, Francois Charriere, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, in the Holy Name of God invoked and all canonical prescriptions observed, decree what follows:We implore divine blessings on this Priestly Society that it may attain its principal goal which the formation of holy priests.
- The “International Priestly Society of Saint Pius X” is erected in our diocese as a “Pia unio.”
- The seat of the Society is fixed as the Maison St. Pie X (St. Pius X House), 50, rue de la Vignettaz in our episcopal city of Fribourg.
- We approve and confirm the Statutes, here joined, of the Society for a period of six years ad experimentum, which will be able to be renewed for a similar period by tacit approval; after which, the Society can be erected definitively in our diocese by the competent Roman congregation.
Given at Fribourg, at our episcopal residence.
November 1, 1970, on the Feast of All Saints,
[signed] + Francois Charriere,
Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg
Letter of praise and official approval for the SSPX by the Holy See (February 18, 1971)
Sacred Congregation for the Clergy
February 18, 1971
Prot. N. 133515/I.
Exc. me Domine [Excellentissime Domine],
With great joy I received your letter, in which your Excellency informs me of your news and especially of the Statutes of the
Priestly Society.
As Your Excellency explains, this Association, which by your action, received on 1 November 1970, the approbation of His Excellency Francois Charriere, Bishop of Fribourg, has already exceeded the frontiers of Switzerland, and several Ordinaries in different parts of the world have already praise and approve it. All of this and especially the wisdom of the norms which direct and govern this Association give much reason to hope for its success.
As for the Sacred Congregation, the Priestly Society will certainly be able to conform to the end proposed by the Council [for the formation of seminarians], for the distribution of the clergy in the world.
I am respectfully, Your Excellency,
Yours in the Lord.
addictissimus in Domino,
J Card. Wright, Praef.
Exc.mo ac Rev.mo Domino
D.no Marcello LEFEBVRE
Archiepiscopo tit.de Synnada in Phrygia
Via Casalmonferrato, n. 33
ROMAE
So you don't believe that there's such a thing as a conciliar church, would that be right?
I think the Conciliar Church is a name that is given by some to the Catholic Church after Vatican II.
My name isn't John. In the case of Eusebius, he exercised the universal episcopal power in an extraordinary way, not by consecrating bishops (which doesn't require jurisdiction), but by consecrating bishops and then installing them as the bishops of an episcopal see. Appointing bishops to an episcopal see does require jurisdiction - universal jurisdiction - which Eusebius enjoyed as a member of the episcopal college and which he exercised in an extraordinary manner by appointing bishops, with the tacit consent of the pope at the time.
The SSPX bishops have not been appointed to an episcopal see.
Curious that you argue that Eusebius retained universal jurisdiction as a member of the episcopal college, but Lefebvre did not.
Besides, however questionable it may be in other respects, it does not seem to me that Lefebvre's action was in the sense of usurping the jurisdiction of a “brother” bishop, as it would have been if he had explicitly tried to consecrate, say, the bishop of Freiburg."
The other difference is that Eusebius had the tacit consent of the Pope.
that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission.29 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#29B)
Why was it necessary to consecrate bishops on June 30th, when Rome had agreed to speed up the process of approving a bishop, which would allow him to do so on August 15th?
That being said, it is never permitted to consecrate a bishop against the expressed will of the Pope, because choosing bishops, consecrating them, and appointing them, is a privilege that the Pope alone enjoys by virtue of the Primacy. He can permit others to do all three, but neither are permitted without his express or tacit consent. Hence, the teaching of Suarez does not apply when it comes to consecrating a bishop.
…one does not presume in the lawmaker that he has the will to bind in such case and even if he had, it would be without effect. On this point all doctors are agreed who treat of obedience and of laws.30 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#30B)
For the reason, when it is established for certain that the law in a particular circuмstance has become unjust or contrary to another command or virtue which is more binding, then the law ceases to oblige and on his own initiative he can disregard the law without having recourse to the superior,31 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#31B)given that the law in that case could not be observed without sin nor could the superior bind his subject to respect it without sin.32 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#32B)
Hilarious! Fr Scott is every caricaturist's dream!
What was wrong with Thuc's approach, fundamentally? Why not be more specific with the criticism, rather than using "Thuc" as a bad word?
Here's an idea, I could be wrong about, but hear me out.
Incredulous alleges that +Williamson, using his powerful personality, could have coalesced and spearheaded the Resistance, functioning as a force-multiplier to make the Resistance bigger, better, stronger, even larger than all the independent and other priests in the Resistance combined (as we see it today).
First of all, you can't thwart God's will. If God meant for an SSPX II, you better believe it would have happened. +Williamson's glory (that God had planned for him) would have been taken from him and given to another. God doesn't need ANY of us -- not even a precious rarity like a Traditional Bishop in 2023. God is fully in control.
If God had wanted an SSPX II in 2023, there would BE an SSPX II in 2023. Perhaps with Bp. Zendejas, Bp. Faure, Bp. Novak, Bp. Timothy Pfeiffer, or someone else at the helm. God makes His will happen. He can resort to inspirations, miracles if need be. He arranges everything in power and wisdom. Going against His holy will is kicking against the goad. Completely futile.
Second of all, you assume that countless others both priest and laity "would have" jumped ship and joined the Resistance if +Williamson had acted as a unifying lightning rod, a second coming of +Lefebvre as it were, to create an SSPX II as it were.
But that is open for debate. The SSPX has powerful propaganda. The world has its claws into MOST of the SSPX faithful. People don't want to abandon their chapels they've donated to for years. Some of them don't understand the Archbishop's fight to begin with. Many of the SSPX Faithful are ignorant about the Crisis, Vatican II, etc. Some are recent converts from the Novus Ordo. The list of reasons is very long.
And even a 1/10 scale model of the SSPX would pale in comparison to "what they have" by staying in the SSPX. So don't kid yourself. Those who left for principles, the Faith, dogmatic reasons (the current Resistance) would have left either way. And those who stayed for "practical" reasons would still have stayed in the SSPX -- for the same reasons: the priests would say they can help more people in the SSPX, and the Faithful would enjoy more of everything by staying in the SSPX.
So there you have it.
Now in Catholic history, there have been worse odds and Holy Men stepped up to the plate and begged God’s assistance to make things happen… and they did.
+Thuc himself asked "Why does everyone wants to become a bishop?"So they can live in someone’s garage?:incense:
Why does the "resistance" need a leader when so many resistors are still going to sspx chapels?Because most have nowhere better to go, most likely. How many SSPX people live close enough to a resistance chapel to make it their regular church home? How many resistance chapels have mass and Sacraments regularly enough for the same purpose? If you have children, are they going to keep the Faith attending Mass a few times a year, or once a month, waiting sometimes years for Sacraments? As for the SSPX, I think a lot depends upon the priest and who attends. If the priest is one of the old guard, and/or the faithful (those with the $$$, especially), are from the older days, the new stuff isn’t likely to take hold as much or very quickly.
Because most have nowhere better to go, most likely. How many SSPX people live close enough to a resistance chapel to make it their regular church home? How many resistance chapels have mass and Sacraments regularly enough for the same purpose? If you have children, are they going to keep the Faith attending Mass a few times a year, or once a month, waiting sometimes years for Sacraments? As for the SSPX, I think a lot depends upon the priest and who attends. If the priest is one of the old guard, and/or the faithful (those with the $$$, especially), are from the older days, the new stuff isn’t likely to take hold as much or very quickly.You missed the point.
I think there are a fair number who go to SSPX chapels because the other choices are involuntary Home-Alone or the novus ordo.
You missed the point.
If you have children, are they going to keep the Faith attending Mass a few times a year, or once a month, waiting sometimes years for Sacraments?
Um...how about you share that point with us? I don't get your point either.If "resistors" go to the SSPX, there isn't a need for great "resistance " leader. The need is for more priests and more Masses.
If "resistors" go to the SSPX, there isn't a need for great "resistance " leader. The need is for more priests and more Masses.And in the meantime they see their children go off into the world and lose the faith, or they, themselves lose the faith? You don’t seriously think a thriving resistance network of any or no organization is going to spring up in say, a year or two at most, do you? A person needs to weigh the risks and benefits of what’s currently available and what is likely to be available in the near future. Most of us don’t have the wherewithal to found, build, maintain, and populate a resistance chapel.
And in the meantime they see their children go off into the world and lose the faith, or they, themselves lose the faith? You don’t seriously think a thriving resistance network of any or no organization is going to spring up in say, a year or two at most, do you? A person needs to weigh the risks and benefits of what’s currently available and what is likely to be available in the near future. Most of us don’t have the wherewithal to found, build, maintain, and populate a resistance chapel.We were never meant to raise children without a Catholic Community. And since the SSPX broke with Rome and then tried to go back, we just keep getting splits. I know there are many positions on what Catholics should be doing right now and that is the frustration. The Traditionalists should be working together, not against each other. It isn't just about the SSPX and the "resistance". It is also about +Archbishop Lefebvre vs Thuc, una cuм vs non una cuм, sede vs r&r. Women should support their spouses decisions, but all this division is really affecting women and children. And due to the submission stance, woman and children have no voice. This is why I wrote the letter I did (its in a different thread). We need to realize that what ideas we come up with will never hold water until a Catholic Pope decides on the issues. In the mean time the clergy should provide sacraments for those in need. Under the emergency situation we know we are in. May God keep us Faithful and not discouraged.