Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: AntiFellayism on March 11, 2013, 11:50:40 PM
-
Dear XXXX,
In order to justify before God, your staying quietly in the SSPX mainstream you must be able to agree with each of the numbered statements at least "essentially." If you see that any ONE of them is a danger to souls, then you are obliged before God to speak out and to act.
1. The General Chapter official unretracted declaration of July 14, 2012 with its absence of the teaching of the 2 Magisteria and its presence of 6 conditions as well as its ambiguous language regarding the meaning of Tradition both is not a danger to the Faith of Souls and will not lead souls down the slippery path of Modernism.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
2. The General Chapter's official "determined and approved" "the SSPX bind herself" acceptance of the placing ourselves under Modernist Rome's Authority is not a danger to the Faith of our Sheep and will not lead souls down the slippery path of Modernism.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
3.The Superior General's March 18 Cor Unum directive to "change our attitude towards Rome," to no longer have "the Bulldozer approach" to be open to a deal with Rome as long as Rome 1. allows us to have the 1962 liturgy and 2. allows us to "operate with a certain real freedom in concrete circuмstances" is not a principle of compromise and not a danger to the Faith of our SSPX priests or laity and will not lead souls down the slippery path of Modernism.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
4.The SSPX new "positive approach" to neo-modernist Rome does not endanger souls into falling into the modernism of the "neo-conservatives" such as FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, the Sons of the Redeemer, Micheal Voris etc.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
5. The SSPX posting in its official communications (SSPX.org and DICI.org) stories from Rome, articles from Neo-cons intermixed with similar SSPX authors, without correction or commentary about what is erroneous, is not a danger to the faith of Souls receiving official SSPX literature and will not lead souls down the slippery path of Modernism..
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
6. It is a more grave evil against unity and obedience to criticize the Superior General in his "seeming" liberal unretracted, unclarified statements of the May 11 CNS interview, his own DICI interviews, his own directives of March 18 his letter to the Three Bishops of April 14, and July 14, 2012 than to criticize them publicly on the grounds of there being a "grave danger to Faith that leads souls down the slippery path of Modernism." i.e. Unity is greater than Faith.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
7. An SSPX priest is only justified to speak out if and when (not before) that priest is commanded to celebrate the New Mass or is commanded to preach a direct heresy. Anything less can only be criticized or corrected in private and certainly not before the Faithful since they are not being affected negatively until they see the New Mass. i.e. The Doctrine is secondary behind the Traditional Liturgy. If this Statement is True then you must align yourself with the FSSP or any other Novus Ordo appendage of your choice.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
8. The priests and faithful must have trust in their Superiors and should not read or research anything related to the present crisis of the SSPX except from SSPX approved sources, namely SSPX.org and Dici.org. Disobedience is against God in these matters. The Faithful should not study these matters but have confidence in the track record and wisdom of the Superior General and follow his judgment since he was chosen by God and Archbishop Lefebvre and has the grace of state that the priests and faithful don’t have. Hence the faithful should simply follow blindly this Superior General Auxiliary Bishop of a Pio Unio who has no jurisdiction over them.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
St. Bernard says that a priest is a watchdog and a watchdog is useless unless he barks. Where is thy bark. St. Felix II said "to not condemn error is to approve it, to not teach the truth is to condemn it." This statement does not refer to errors presently unknown or untaught, but to the errors of our day, our time, our place. In a world of pagans one does not speak of the errors of Molinism or Monotheletism. Hence, if there are errors in our own SSPX as our own Catholic Church, the same principle demands that the Catholic priest condemn both.
in Christ,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Attached is an incomplete collection of recent communications from SSPX officialdom, compiled by an SSPX parishioner in the USA. 20 pages of liberal, neo-modernist official texts of the Neo-SSPX. You cannot claim that all is well because you refuse to read, listen or study what is happening in SSPX 2012-13.
_____________
SOURCE : (Sorry, I heard Matthew has suppressed it)
-
The aforementioned attachment:
-
And this is what the SSPX theologian Francois Laisney has just written:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Pseudo_anti_liberal_illusion.pdf
-
Don't shoot the messenger. I like to copy things for posterity. :cowboy:
And this is what the SSPX theologian Francois Laisney has just written:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Pseudo_anti_liberal_illusion.pdf
The pseudo-anti-liberal illusion
For some time now, certain persons have been publishing the most grievous accusations against the superiors of the SSPX to an almost obsessive degree without realising that they themselves have lost contact with reality; they have fallen into errors which I will call “pseudo-anti-liberal”, because they pretend to be anti-liberal, though they themselves fall into the very defect they condemn, as wrote St Paul: “Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou dost the same things which thou judgest” (Rom. 2:1).
A CANONICAL REGULARISATION – SOMETHING GOOD IN ITSELF
After having defined the notion of a liberal – someone who rejects the authority of God and of His Law – in order to conclude that the authorities of the SSPX are liberal, they logically need to prove that these authorities have rejected God and His Law. Now, not only have they failed to prove that Bishop Fellay and the authorities of the SSPX reject God and His Law, they have also failed to recognise that is precisely in order to obey the Law of God that – following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre (who always rejected sedevacantism) – these authorities are attached to the Catholic Church, as it is concretely today (sadly disfigured by modernism and liberalism as Christ was disfigured on the Cross), but remaining nonetheless the Catholic Church founded by Christ on Peter and against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. St Thomas Aquinas explains that all law is essentially an order, ordo rationis: this submission to the Law of God therefore implies necessarily the love of order, and thus the desire to be in order within the Church of God; a canonical regularisation has no other purpose. There is therefore nothing liberal in this, on the contrary.
DISTINCTION: SUBMISSION TO THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER
Where is the problem then? It comes from the fact that many of those who possess authority in the Church today are infected by liberalism to diverse degrees. This neither Bishop Fellay nor any priest of the SSPX denies. But, while Bishop Fellay and the faithful priests of the SSPX, following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, make the distinction between being subject to the successor of Peter as successor of Peter and not as liberal, nay, while resisting his liberalism, those who oppose Bishop Fellay seems to be viscerally unable to make such distinction and persevere in their ignorance of the teaching of St Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the bad ones does not harm the good ones so long as they do not consent to their evilness. The words bad ones translate the Latin mali. Put liberals in place of bad ones, since liberalism is bad, and the principle of St Augustine is exactly the position of Bishop Fellay and the refutation of those who oppose him: in the Catholic Church, communion with the liberals does not harm the good ones so long as they do not consent with their liberalism.
To understand the principle of St Augustine, one must remember the great truth which Father Calmel often recalled: the head of the Church is Christ; the Pope is only his vicar. It is because the communion with the members of the Church is first of all communion with Christ that it does not harm the goods, so long as they do not consent to the evil. And it is because they forget Christ at the head of the Church that certain persons are so afraid of this communion, paying attention only to the human side of the Church and forgetting the Sacred Heart who is in control of everything in His Church. Their zeal so bitter – so opposed to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre – manifests this neglect of the Sacred Heart. Let us pray for them.
DEGREES OF LIBERALISM
Archbishop Lefebvre often pointed out that there are many degrees of liberalism. Some reject systematically the very principle of any law and any obligation: such liberals have clearly not the true Faith. Others, while recognising God and His Law, and all the truths of the Catholic Faith, do not
2
apply them sufficiently to concrete situations or don’t have the courage to recognise their
consequences in modern society; and among these liberals there are also many degrees. These still
have the Faith, though they deserve this reproach of Our Lord to His Apostles: “Oh ye of little faith!”
(Mt. 8:26, 17:16, etc.) One must not therefore indifferently condemn all those infected by liberalism,
as if they were all equally guilty of the most horrible crime, viz. to be at war with God. Moreover one
ought not systematically to interpret every action of a liberal as evil; in the 19th century, some great
anti-liberal Catholics such as Pope Pius IX or Cardinal Pie did not fear to praise the good done by
some liberals such as Mgr Dupanloup or the Count Montalembert, while vigorously denouncing their
liberalism.
THE VISIBLE CHURCH
Moreover there is a surprising dearth of logic in the Bishop Fellay’s accusers. I quote: “They say we
must rejoin the visible Church because that is the Catholic Church. But the Anglican ‘church’ is still
visible, all over England. Does that make it Catholic?” This argument would stand only if the leaders
of the SSPX would have said: “because it is visible, it is Catholic,” or “all visible churches are
Catholic.” But they evidently have not said anything like this; thus the pretended rebuttal (‘But the
Anglican…’) is a mere sophism.
The truth upon which Bishop Fellay and the authorities of the SSPX insist is that the Catholic Church
is visible, not only yesterday but also today. It was this visible, concrete, Roman, Catholic Church
which yesterday was acknowledged by Archbishop Lefebvre and which today is recognised by Bishop
Fellay and the SSPX (of which we have been living members from its beginning in 1970, and in which
our duty is to be “in order”). There is nothing liberal in all that.
If those who oppose Bishop Fellay today reject this visible, concrete, Roman Catholic Church, which
church is theirs? Where is it? Is it visible? Or is it like their “loose association”, without authority nor
obligations? Such a concept has nothing Catholic about it! Not that I think that this is their idea of
the Church. But it seems to me that their error consists in considering the unity of the Church as
secondary and accessory with regards to the Faith, as if having the Faith would dispense them from
ecclesiastical communion with other members of the Church if these be liberals. Indubitably, one
ought to hold fast to the Faith in all its purity, because “without faith it is impossible to please God”
(Heb. 11:6); but faith without charity does not profit anything (1 Cor. 13:2). It is charity, “the bond of
perfection” (Col. 3:14), which obliges use to keep that bond of communion, as St Augustine often
explained (Archbishop di Noia has given some beautiful passages on this matter, and one could
easily find a great number of similar ones). Here is a real and odd danger: to save the traditional
faith, they lean towards the sola fide?
Three months ago, I wrote in a text entitled Various churches? : “One can read [in one of their
articles]: ‘That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic.
The rest is various sorts of rot.’ Immediately the question is raised: is the Catholic Church merely ‘a
part of the visible Church’? And this leads to another more fundamental question: is it legitimate to
distinguish between the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church and the visible Church? On the contrary,
does not the Catholic Faith oblige us to profess the identity between Christ’s Church, the Catholic
Church and the visible Church? Yes! Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is
visible!” Such was the faith of Archbishop Lefebvre.
THE FIGHT AGAINST ‘CONCILIAR ROME’
It seems to me that those who “never understood the faith of Archbishop Lefebvre” are truly those
who reject this visible, concrete, Roman Catholic Church, in which Archbishop Lefebvre believed and
to which he devoted his whole life, his last years included.
3
Another accusation against Bishop Fellay is that he “uses his authority to oblige his inferiors to follow a direction contrary to that which they had when they joined the SSPX, i.e. the refusal of the fight against the Conciliar Rome.” From the start, one must clarify the expression conciliar Rome: if by that they mean the conciliar spirit, the errors of Vatican II and their multiple applications, such an accusation is a calumny, i.e. it is false and grievously offending to the reputation of Bishop Fellay. The very choice of the SSPX members for the theological discussions with Rome shows that bishop Fellay wanted no weakness in the defence of the Catholic truth against the conciliar novelties, and at the very beginning of last year he clearly set as his first principle: no compromise on the Faith! And the following months only proved that he was faithful to this principle, in spite of the false prophecies announcing that he would compromise the SSPX. If on the contrary one means by conciliar Rome another ecclesial structure than that of the Catholic Church, then one must say that such persons had a wrong conception of the crisis of the Church, a conception other than that of Archbishop Lefebvre! No, Bishop Fellay is not a “depraved father”, but rather a faithful father (with a small number of rebel children!)
FOR CATHOLIC ROME
Let us add, and this is a fundamental argument, that the essential position of Archbishop Lefebvre is not primarily a position against but rather a position for. It was because he was for a total fidelity to the Catholic Faith of all times, that Archbishop Lefebvre was against the conciliar novelties. Such an attitude first of all for and then against is very clear in his famous Declaration: “We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, to eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth. On the contrary we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo Modernist and neo Protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.” But those who set themselves primarily against a situation of triumphant modernism as that of the 70s and 80s, can no longer position themselves in a different situation, as under Benedict XVI where there was an effort (incomplete but real) to correct some evident deviations and to return to a more traditional approach to liturgy and the life of the Church. They do not know how to position themselves because they did not have (or forgot) the superior positive principle, which itself remains valid in every situation.
INEPT RESISTANCE
There is another all too frequent illusion among these critics: they compare their resistance to Bishop Fellay with the resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre to the conciliar novelties; we hear them put in parallel “the conciliar revolution and the accordist revolution.” But this comparison rather shows the inanity of their position. Nay, this comparison turns out to be rather a striking contrast. We can consider three aspects. First, Archbishop Lefebvre resisted the conciliar novelties after they were introduced: it was after the Council and after the New Mas that he started his work at Ecône; it was after Assisi that he did the Consecrations. On the contrary, it was before any compromise, in the fear of a future compromise which never came that these critics attack bishop Fellay. Secondly, let us consider the magnitude of the cause: on one hand, the Council, the New Mass (and the whole liturgical reform, since no sacrament was spared), and Assisi: these are huge scandals, causing immense damages to millions of souls. On the other side, they put forth a few words in an impromptu interview and on a few other occasions that one can count on one’s hand. There is here such a contrast that one can but wonder at the blindness of those who do not see it. Thirdly Archbishop Lefebvre never requested the resignation of Paul VI in spite of the gravity of the conciliar and liturgical reforms, nor of John Paul II in spite of the gravity of Assisi; but these critics request the resignation of Bishop Fellay. St Augustine teaches that it is not suffering and death that makes the martyr, but first and foremost his cause: Archbishop Lefebvre had a just and proportionate cause for his resistance to the conciliar and liturgical novelties, but Bishop Fellay’s critics have no proportion for their resistance which is bare rebellion.
4
LIBERAL ANTI-LIBERALS
I wrote at the beginning that “they pretend to be anti-liberal, though they themselves fall into the very defect they condemn.” Indeed, the characteristic of liberals is the refusal of authority, be it the authority of dogmatic truth, of divine law or ecclesiastical authority. “The liberal is a fanatic of independence, he promotes it even to the point of absurdity, in all domains”, this is how Canon Roussel defined him, quoted by Archbishop Lefebvre (They have uncrowned Him, p.14). And now, behold our great anti-liberals are proposing “independent cells”, i.e. a loose association among them… without authority! Because they have not known how to obey, now they know not how to command. And since authority comes from above, having cut themselves from their legitimate superiors, they have lost all authority. On the contrary, Archbishop Lefebvre founded his Society, as a living branch well rooted in the trunk of the Church by the canonical approval of Mgr Charrière, and thus with a legitimate line of authority, as any truly Catholic work… not so among our critics. Archbishop Lefebvre himself knew how to exercise this authority (among other examples, by expelling the sedevacantists). Here again one sees the contrast between the legitimate resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre and the rebellion of our critics, who, by their refusal of authority, have fallen in the very fault that they criticised.
There is a great illusion in pretending to “rely on a model of paternity (which includes authority) and not on an authoritative structure as such”, because precisely by rejecting that authoritative structure they fall back willy-nilly on a paternity without authority, typical of liberalism. They say: “if it weren’t contradictory, I would envisage a structure without authority, but with paternity, yes, with paternity! This is indispensable!” Unfortunately for them, it is contradictory! The very word authority comes from the word author; a father who would not be the author of his children would not really be father! A father who would refuse to have a true authority on his children would be… a liberal father! There is no true paternity without authority.
They do well to denounce liberalism as “a religion with no rules except their own will.” But why then are they making a free association of priests, association with no rules except their own will?
Let us pray that they correct themselves and humbly ask to be readmitted in the Society of St Pius X. May St Joseph obtain this grace for them!
Fr. François Laisney
-
Apparently Fr. Laisney should be dragged out kicking and screaming along
with the rest of them.
Enough is enough.
Attached is an incomplete collection of recent communications from SSPX officialdom, compiled by an SSPX parishioner in the USA. 20 pages of liberal, neo-modernist official texts of the Neo-SSPX. You cannot claim that all is well because you refuse to read, listen or study what is happening in SSPX 2012-13.
Where are the 20 pages?
-
The aforementioned attachment:
Apparently this is the attachment - "20 pages" has become 34 pages.
-
The aforementioned attachment:
Apparently this is the attachment - "20 pages" has become 34 pages.
I wish the author would provide some manner of source data - if nothing else
just say this is coming from CathInfo.com or stmarcelinitiative
or whatever. He repeatedly has this phrase:
"article with no individual author identified,"
but his entire list is really an article with no individual author identified.
-
Don't shoot the messenger. I like to copy things for posterity. :cowboy:
And this is what the SSPX theologian Francois Laisney has just written:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Pseudo_anti_liberal_illusion.pdf
The pseudo-anti-liberal illusion..................................
Thanks for publishing the full article MD. I don't know how to attach another file onto a post .
Coming to Laisney, the man is a genius. While other priests have been unable to pick up the Tamil language even after 10 years, he has done so in ten minutes, so to speak. He actually prepared a sermon in Tamil for Mass and began reading it out in his French accent. The congregation had to invoke Heaven to prevent it's death from laughter. Midway, he handed the sermon to the regular translator to read out. The poor guy had to struggle to prevent his own death by laughter. I need not tell you what the consensus of opinion among the faithful was concerning this episode. What I have learned from this is not to waste the very limited brain power I have, on reading stuff turned out by Fr Laisney.
-
Totally incompetent.
Fr. Laisney claims that the resistance is bogus and does not parallel the resistance of ABL to Vatican II, because Archbishop Lefebvre did not react until after the Vatican II reforms were enacted.
Apparently he never heard of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum (i.e., the group of 250 bishops who organized to stop and counteract the liberal position during Vatican II).
-
Don't shoot the messenger. I like to copy things for posterity. :cowboy:
And this is what the SSPX theologian Francois Laisney has just written:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Pseudo_anti_liberal_illusion.pdf
The pseudo-anti-liberal illusion..................................
Thanks for publishing the full article MD. I don't know how to attach another file onto a post .
Coming to Laisney, the man is a genius. While other priests have been unable to pick up the Tamil language even after 10 years, he has done so in ten minutes, so to speak. He actually prepared a sermon in Tamil for Mass and began reading it out in his French accent. The congregation had to invoke Heaven to prevent it's death from laughter. Midway, he handed the sermon to the regular translator to read out. The poor guy had to struggle to prevent his own death by laughter. I need not tell you what the consensus of opinion among the faithful was concerning this episode. What I have learned from this is not to waste the very limited brain power I have, on reading stuff turned out by Fr Laisney.
We must not forget that SATAN is also a genius. :devil2:
-
Don't shoot the messenger. I like to copy things for posterity. :cowboy:
And this is what the SSPX theologian Francois Laisney has just written:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Pseudo_anti_liberal_illusion.pdf
DISTINCTION: SUBMISSION TO THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER
Where is the problem then? It comes from the fact that many of those who possess authority in the Church today are infected by liberalism to diverse degrees. This neither Bishop Fellay nor any priest of the SSPX denies. But, while Bishop Fellay and the faithful priests of the SSPX, following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, make the distinction between being subject to the successor of Peter as successor of Peter and not as liberal, nay, while resisting his liberalism, those who oppose Bishop Fellay seems to be viscerally unable to make such distinction and persevere in their ignorance of the teaching of St Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the bad ones does not harm the good ones so long as they do not consent to their evilness. The words bad ones translate the Latin mali. Put liberals in place of bad ones, since liberalism is bad, and the principle of St Augustine is exactly the position of Bishop Fellay and the refutation of those who oppose him: in the Catholic Church, communion with the liberals does not harm the good ones so long as they do not consent with their liberalism.
Thanks for posting MaterD!!!
Liberals in the Catholic Church DO harm the "good ones", otherwise why bother setting up the SSPX in the first place if not to get away from the "bad ones" ... and thereafter a move to the new Resistance with the "bad ones" now being the liberal minded within the SSPX... Thought it does make difficult reading, or maybe it's just me?! :sign-surrender:
-
The gist of all these arguments comes down to:
"We're not liberal because the conciliar Church actually is the "disfigured" Catholic Church after all, and those who oppose us must be sedes or schismatics"
"We're not liberal (just ignore all the double-speak) you're liberal! And we have authority.
Because we said so!
This is the neo-SSPX, behind its flood of verbiage.
A group whose leadership is in cahoots with GREC and the Zionist.
-
The NSSPX seems to believe they can avoid being infected with Liberalism, when they are blind to the fact that they are already so! +Williamson was wise to tell us: Stay away from the Liberals! Be respectful, charitable, etc. to them, but keep your distance from them as they will influence you to their ideas!
-
the teaching of St Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the bad ones does not harm the good ones so long as they do not consent to their evilness.
One cannot be in communion with heretics. That has nothing to do with Donatism.
Therefore, is it necessary to leave the official Church? To some extent, yes, obviously.
The whole book of Mr. Madiran "The Heresy of the Twentieth Century" is the story of the heresy of the bishops.
It is therefore necessary to leave the bishops’ environment, if you do not want to lose the soul.
But that's not enough, as it is in Rome where the heresy is settled. If the bishops are heretics (even without taking this term in his canonical sense and consequences) is not without the influence of Rome.
If we move away from these people, is quite the same way as people with AIDS. There is no desire to catch it. Now, they have spiritual AIDS, infectious diseases. If you want to save your health, you need not to go with them.
-
Reputation: 1659
(Likers: 88 / Critics: 11)
Group: Members
Posts: 2,731
Joined: Aug 19, 2006
"Don't shoot the messenger. I like to copy things for posterity."
So sorry, MaterDominici, I put a 'negative' in error, I meant it to be a 'negative' against Fr. Laisney's long diatribe.
-
I'm going to take the time to look at just one paragraph of this screed by
Fr. Laisney.
Don't shoot the messenger. I like to copy things for posterity. :cowboy:
And this is what the SSPX theologian Francois Laisney has just written:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Pseudo_anti_liberal_illusion.pdf
The pseudo-anti-liberal illusion...
Three months ago, I wrote in a text entitled Various churches? :
“One can read [in one of their articles]: ‘That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.’ Immediately the question is raised: is the Catholic Church merely ‘a part of the visible Church’? And this leads to another more fundamental question: is it legitimate to distinguish between the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church and the visible Church? On the contrary, does not the Catholic Faith oblige us to profess the identity between Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church and the visible Church? Yes! Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible!”
Such was the faith of Archbishop Lefebvre.
...Let us pray that they correct themselves and humbly ask to be readmitted in the Society of St Pius X. May St Joseph obtain this grace for them!
Fr. François Laisney
Here, Fr. Laisney cannot bring himself to utter the words, "Eleison
Comments," or even so much as "EC" but rather refers to them as
"[in one of their articles]." Nor does he dare mention the name of Bishop
Williamson, the author, and one must wonder: Why not? Perhaps Fr.
Laisney regards +W's name as radioactive or somehow "untouchable?"
Maybe Fr. Laisney is trying to be Amish, and 'shun' the Bishop? Or, rather,
does he practice that procedure so accurately described in Pascendi, when
the Modernists gather, making a circle about the one they would ignore,
and turn their backs on him in silence, pretending he is not there?
Or, is it rather to attempt some lame effort at distancing himself from any
accusations of calumny against a Bishop of the Church, when he proceeds
to misinterpret and falsify what that Bishop wrote? What has he said here?
Fr. Laisney admits to having written in his "text entitled Various churches"
that his immediate reaction (which he apparently urges everyone to
imitate) was to ask, "Is the Catholic Church merely 'a part of the visible
Church'?"
Immediately the question is raised: is the Catholic Church merely ‘a part of the visible Church’?
Well, Fr. Laisney, I would like to inform you, that the Council you would be
so eager to defend, Vatican II, TEACHES precisely that! Read LG 8 for
clarification. Or, type LG 8 Church into any search engine and read
the quip that has become infamous:
"The Church of Christ... subsists in the Catholic Church" (LG 8).
And this leads to another more fundamental question: is it legitimate to
distinguish between the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church and the visible Church?
Wait. Before you run off on a tangent again, the answer is "Yes." It is
legitimate to distinguish between the Catholic Church, Christ's Church,
and the visible Church, so long as this "visible Church" is practicing heresy.
In fact, is is our OBLIGATION as faithful Catholics to make this necessary and
objective distinction.
When this visible Church rubs elbows with all manner of false religions like
it does not not one, not two but THREE Assisi gatherings of false religions,
pretending that their leaders all occupy positions of equal recognition to the
Pope of Rome. How many examples do you want?
In September of 2011 when Pope Benedict XVI visited Poland he "ran the
gauntlet" of coldness as bishop after bishop refused to shake his hand, and
this after some clown in a business suit walked before him whose hand
EVERY ONE of said bishops accepted with a broad smile. The ones that did
'stoop' to touching his hand seemed to do so reluctantly and quickly, as if it
was somehow contaminated. Is that an example of your idea of "unity" Fr.
Laisney?
On the contrary, does not the Catholic Faith oblige us to profess the identity between Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church and the visible Church? Yes!
Woops! Must be a typo, Fr. Laisney! That should be "No!" On the contrary,
professing the identity of the Christ's Church, the Catholic Church and the
visible Church is a lie, if it is not true. When the Pope stands there before
millions of viewers and all the media, explaining that a male prostitute is
"making a move in the right direction" when he uses a condom, is that the
visible Church, Fr. Laisney? When Bishop Levada refuses to get rid of the
fαɢs in his diocese administration is that the visible Church in action, Fr.
Laisney? Is that what authority you desire to be under, Fr. Laisney?
Yes! Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible!” Such was the faith of Archbishop Lefebvre.
A half truth is a whole lie, Fr. Laisney, and that makes you a liar.
And SHAME ON YOU for trying to pin this lie on Archbishop Lefebvre.
This Church is visible, but it must be distinguished. For due to the overt
corruption that has set in, the "rot" (mentioned in the EC you refuse to
identify as such), we are not supposed to identify the spotless bride of
Christ with that corruption.
Or, would you eagerly propose, Fr. Laisney, that we consider that it
depends what one means by "spotless," or "bride" or "Christ?"
Your conspicuous and lame mental gymnastics, Fr. Laisney, rate really low,
like 1 out of 10, round figures. Because the "one" vote would be an act
of pity.
-
We are in the middle of Lent, which is a good thing, because this is an
opportunity for the practice of penance: TO REFRAIN FROM PULLING OUT
OUR HAIR WHEN WE READ THIS KID OF ROT.
The gist of all these arguments comes down to:
"We're not liberal because the conciliar Church actually is the 'disfigured' Catholic Church after all, and those who oppose us must be sedes or schismatics."
"We're not liberal (just ignore all the double-speak) you're liberal! And we have authority. --
-- Because we said so!"
This is the neo-SSPX, behind its flood of verbiage.
A group whose leadership is in cahoots with GREC and the Zionist.
Fr. Laisney trips through hoops (instead of leaping) in an attempt to get
around his palpable liberalism-in-action.
He makes a false distinction, putting anyone who opposes his objectively
liberal agenda into one of two camps: sedes or schismatics.
"WE'RE not liberal! YOU'RE liberal!" Fr. Laisney would be wont to say -- but
he won't say that because it would be too honest. Instead he beats around
the bush.
I'd like to quote the untouchable himself, +W, in his recent conference from
the heartland of Laisney's comrade-in-arms, Fr. Rostand, Post Falls, Idaho.
This is from the Q&A portion of the conference, and is his answer to a question
that is not audible on the tape. It obviously had to do with what it means to
be a liberal and/or what it takes for something to qualify as papal infallibility.
This is a most edifying answer from Bishop Williamson.
I would recommend memorizing it, and when you quote it to an Accordista,
do not identify who it is whom you are quoting. Leave out the name of
Bishop Williamson, so as to LET THE ACCORDISTA APPRECIATE THE TRUTH
of what you are saying, to savor of the sweetness of the Master's Voice,
for it is something the Accordista is most likely HUNGRY to hear, and when
he hears it, he will know this is the voice of the master speaking. Let him
taste and see the goodness of the Lord, and once he gets this goodness
in mind, and is settled with the notion that it is good, THEN let him know
that these are words of Bishop Williamson. Let him then UNDO the
association in his mind of 'negativity' with the name, 'Williamson', let the
words do their work for you. Let him convince himself................
//////
From part 3 of 3 (it was a 3-hour conference; this is in the 3rd hour).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D80OW_zB2I
13:30
Let's say that true Tradition is between liberalism on one side and sedevacantism
on the other. Okay? And actually, sedevacantism is the flip side of liberalism.
Sedevacantism and liberalism are like heads and tails of the same coin. That
sounds strange, but the two are maybe closer to one another than either of
them is close to Tradition.
How can that be? Because sedevacantists and liberals both make the same
mistake, of exaggerating papal infallibility.
The Liberals say, "The popes are infallible, the popes are liberal, therefore,
liberalism is the truth." And that's what a lot of Catholics have been thinking.
The sedevacantists say, "The popes are infallible, these popes are liberal,
therefore they're not popes."
Two very different conclusions from the same premises.. Where's the error?
The logic is logical:
The popes are liberal, the popes are infallible, therefore liberalism is the truth.
[Vs.]
The popes are liberal, liberalism is a miserable error, therefore they're not popes.
Or, The popes are infallible, liberalism is not infallible, therefore these liberal
popes are not popes.
The error is in the exaggeration of papal infallibility.
And Tradition does not exaggerate papal infallibility.
Tradition understands papal infallibility not in a lazy way, but in a thinking way:
~ The Pope must be talking as Pope, as head of the Universal Church,
~ On a question of faith and morals,
~ In a definitive manner - "This is it, boys,"
~ And with a purpose of binding the whole Church.
Those are the four conditions on which he's infallible. If any [one or more] of
those 4 conditions are absent, he's not infallible. [Then] he can make mistakes.
But what both liberals and sedevacantists do is take things that he says when he's
certainly not trying to bind the whole Church as though it's absolutely true,
simply because he's the pope saying them.
Papal infallibility needs some careful understanding!
And so Tradition makes God infallible, but not any human being. The Pope is
only, under certain strict conditions infallible, and that stops a traditionalist from
being either a sedevacantist or a liberal.
That's my view. I think that was the Archbishop's view. I think it would
be Bishop Fellay's view.
16:45
//////
I would go so far as to explain, that Bishop Fellay might admit to this in
private, so long as he believes no one is going to quote him in public, for
to make this view known would be to destroy the illusion that he and his
buddies have falsely constructed, as evidenced in the above writings of
Fr. Laisney, that is to say, the straw-man argument that anyone opposed
to them is a liberal, or else one of these two - either sede or schismatic.
Bishop Williamson did not address the category of schismatic in this answer,
but if he had done so, I expect he would say that schism is a different
kind of problem, because it is a well-established heresy. Liberalism is also
a heresy, but it is much more subtle. One can be a liberal and not know it.
One can be a Modernist and not know he is infected. Sedevacantism is
not really a heresy, though. It is kind of an extreme view that is based
on an exaggeration of papal infallibility. Schismatics are generally outside
this distinction for in the main, they deny papal infallibility altogether, or,
that is, so they would say they do, even if they are just saying so in order
to be "in unity" with their fellow schismatics.
I am sure glad that it is Our Lady's job to deal with all these factions. One
fine day, she's going to destroy all this heresy and corruption with one
stomp of her Immaculate heel.
-
The liberal novus ordo will do what they can to destroy the sspx. One woman recently wrote praising Pope John XXIII, guitar mass, and even said that mary madgledin was one of the apostles etc.
I prefer the Mass of the Cristeros, the Mass of my Irish ancestors while using the Missal of a saint. Saint Pius V.
-
The liberal novus ordo will do what they can to destroy the sspx. One woman recently wrote praising Pope John XXIII, guitar mass, and even said that mary madgledin was one of the apostles etc.
I prefer the Mass of the Cristeros, the Mass of my Irish ancestors while using the Missal of a saint. Saint Pius V.
and Pope Pius X who is also a saint..
-
It's funny - after all that, we are diverted by the one screed of Fr. Laisney,
when this thread is centered on the letter of Fr. Pfeiffer to the priests of the
SSPX.
Has everyone forgotten that here we are seeing a letter from Fr. Pfeiffer to
all the priests of the SSPX when we had been expecting to see a letter
from Bishop DiNoia to all the priests of the SSPX????
Dear XXXX,
In order to justify before God, your staying quietly in the SSPX mainstream you must be able to agree with each of the numbered statements at least "essentially." If you see that any ONE of them is a danger to souls, then you are obliged before God to speak out and to act.
1. The General Chapter official unretracted declaration of July 14, 2012 with its absence of the teaching of the 2 Magisteria* and its presence of 6 conditions as well as its ambiguous language regarding the meaning of Tradition both is not a danger to the Faith of Souls and will not lead souls down the slippery path of Modernism.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
2. The General Chapter's official "determined and approved" "the SSPX binds herself" acceptance of the placing ourselves under Modernist Rome's Authority is not a danger to the Faith of our Sheep and will not lead souls down the slippery path of Modernism.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
3.The Superior General's March 18 Cor Unum directive to "change our attitude towards Rome," to no longer have "the Bulldozer approach" to be open to a deal with Rome, as long as Rome 1) allows us to have the 1962 liturgy and 2) allows us to "operate with a certain real freedom in concrete circuмstances" is not a principle of compromise and not a danger to the Faith of our SSPX priests or laity and will not lead souls down the slippery path of Modernism.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
4.The SSPX new "positive approach" to neo-modernist Rome does not endanger souls into falling into the modernism of the "neo-conservatives" such as FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, the Sons of the Redeemer, Micheal Voris, etc.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
5. The SSPX posting in its official communications (SSPX.org and DICI.org) stories from Rome, articles from Neo-cons intermixed with similar SSPX authors, without correction or commentary about what is erroneous, is not a danger to the faith of Souls receiving official SSPX literature and will not lead souls down the slippery path of Modernism..
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
6. It is a more grave evil against unity and obedience to criticize the Superior General in his "seeming" liberal unretracted, unclarified statements of the May 11 CNS interview, in his own DICI interviews, in his own directives of March 18 his letter to the Three Bishops of April 14 and July 14, 2012, than to criticize them publicly on the grounds of there being a "grave danger to Faith that leads souls down the slippery path of Modernism." i.e. Unity is greater than Faith.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you, as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
7. An SSPX priest is only justified to speak out if and when (not before) that priest is commanded to celebrate the New Mass or is commanded to preach a direct heresy. Anything less can only be criticized or corrected in private and certainly not before the Faithful since they are not being affected negatively until they see the New Mass. i.e. The Doctrine is secondary behind the Traditional Liturgy. If this Statement is True then you must align yourself with the FSSP or any other Novus Ordo appendage of your choice.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
8. The priests and faithful must have trust in their Superiors and should not read or research anything related to the present crisis of the SSPX except from SSPX approved sources, namely SSPX.org and Dici.org. Disobedience is against God in these matters. The Faithful should not study these matters but have confidence in the track record and wisdom of the Superior General and follow his judgment since he was chosen by God and Archbishop Lefebvre and has the grace of state that the priests and faithful don’t have. Hence the faithful should simply follow blindly this Superior General Auxiliary Bishop of a Pio Unio who has no jurisdiction over them.
If the above statement is a danger to the Faith of Souls then you as a priest of God must speak out and warn the flock.
St. Bernard says that a priest is a watchdog and a watchdog is useless unless he barks. Where is thy bark?
St. Felix II said, "To not condemn error is to approve it. To not teach the truth is to condemn it." This statement does not refer to errors presently unknown or untaught, but [it refers] to the errors of our day, our time, our place. [E.g.] In a world of pagans, one does not speak of the errors of Molinism or Monotheletism! **
Hence, if there are errors in our own SSPX as our own Catholic Church, the same principle demands that the Catholic priest condemn [them in] both.
in Christ,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Attached is an incomplete collection of recent communications from SSPX officialdom, compiled by an SSPX parishioner in the USA. [34] pages of liberal, neo-Modernist official texts of the Neo-SSPX. You cannot claim that all is well because you refuse to read, listen or study what is happening in SSPX 2012-13.
_____________
SOURCE : (Sorry, I heard Matthew has suppressed it)
*2 Magisteria - for anyone jumping in cold to this, the "two Magisteria" is a
topic Fr. Pfeiffer has covered previously. Magisteria is a Latin term meaning
plural teaching offices, that is, more than one of them. Normally, we say
Magisterium, meaning "the teaching office of the Church."
There are a lot of hapless modern Catholics who are under the delusion that
when they hear about the "magisterium" they are hearing about the persons
of bishops and/or archbishops and/or cardinals, singly or together or any
combination thereof. This is a misunderstanding that has grown ever since
the confusion of Vat.II - the hierarchy saw it developing and they seemed to
have liked it, because it gave them MORE POWER, just as +Fellay and the
Menzingen-denizens are currently basking in the limelight of their false glory
in the minds of unsuspecting Faithful who want to believe them.
IOW, wolves in sheep's clothing, who would devour the sheep.
By the "two Magisteria" Fr. Pfeiffer is talking about the authentic teaching
office of Holy Mother Church, the Magisterium, PLUS the imposter, false
teaching office of the post-Conciliar and modernist Rome, which teaches
objective error something "like it's going out of style," if you will. And we
wish it would!
The "two Magisteria" are two opposing forces, the 'thesis and antithesis' of
Hegelian 'dialectic' which means a push and a pull, which by inherent
tension brings into being a new reality, the 'synthesis' which is apparently
what +Fellay et. al. are striving to hook up with in their 'deal' with
modernist Rome.
**Molinism isn't a heresy, per se, and Monotholitism is, and it is this
disparity that Fr. alludes to here.
-
What does Bishop Fellay have to gain from a sellout? I do not understand his actions. What is in it for him?