Author Topic: Menzingen Suspends Relations with Dominicans of Avrille (Read 9888 times)

Chiara · « **on:** May 14, 2014, 07:24:55 AM »

As reported by Cristera on Abp. Lefebvre Forums.

christusvincit.clicforum.com/t202-L-abb-de-Cacqueray-un-homme-d-exception.htm

Menzingen breaks relations with the Dominicans of Avrillé:

Dear Father,

In the letter to Mayor Superiors of April 10, that you will receive in the next B.O., we are told that Bishop Fellay had to suspend all relations with the convent of Avrillé, after the “Addresse to the Faithful” signed for the Priests, and a public conference organized by the Father Prior on January 19. In this conference, the authorities of the Society are strongly attacked, and at the same time, it was launched an appeal to resist openly Bishop Fellay. Awaiting for clarifications and explanations requested by the General Superior to the Father Prior twice, and the necessary reparation for the excessive declarations maintained by Avrillé, any relation or collaboration is necessarily suspended with this community. We hope that this measure would be temporary.

If there are activities foreseen with Avrillé's convent, inform the Father Prior that you cannot keep them.

Thanking you for your compliance with these directives, I beg to add, dear Father, the expression of my priestly devotion on the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Father de Cacqueray

ancien regime · « **Reply #1 on:** May 14, 2014, 08:12:15 AM »

I cleaned up the translation. I guess this really shows where Fr. de Cacqueray stands.

Society of St. Pius X
Superior of the District
Suresnes, 9 May 2014

Re: Dominicans of Avrillé

Dear Father,

In a circular letter dated 10 April to the Major Superiors, a copy of which you will be receiving shortly in the next Official Bulletin, we are told that “Bishop Fellay has had to suspend all relations with the friary of Avrillé following an “Appeal to the Faithful” that the fathers had signed and a public conference that the Father Prior organized on January 19 last at the friary. In this conference, the authorities of the Society were strongly attacked and at the same time an appeal to openly resist Bishop Fellay was launched. While waiting for clarifications and explanations that the Superior General has twice requested from the Father Prior, and the necessary reparation that the outrageous remarks made by Avrillé require, all relations or collaborations are necessarily suspended with this community. We hope that this measure will be temporary.”

If there are activities planned with the Avrillé friary, I would ask that you advise the Father Prior that you cannot keep them.

Thank you for your compliance with these directives, I beg to add, dear father, the expression of my priestly devotion to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Fr. Regis de Cacqueray

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** May 14, 2014, 08:59:35 AM »

Quote from: ancien regime

I cleaned up the translation. I guess this really shows where Fr. de Cacqueray stands.

Society of St. Pius X
Superior of the District
Suresnes, 9 May 2014

Re: Dominicans of Avrillé

Dear Father,

In a circular letter dated 10 April to the Major Superiors, a copy of which you will be receiving shortly in the next Official Bulletin, we are told that “Bishop Fellay has had to suspend all relations with the friary of Avrillé following an “Appeal to the Faithful” that the fathers had signed and a public conference that the Father Prior organized on January 19 last at the friary. In this conference, the authorities of the Society were strongly attacked and at the same time an appeal to openly resist Bishop Fellay was launched. While waiting for clarifications and explanations that the Superior General has twice requested from the Father Prior, and the necessary reparation that the outrageous remarks made by Avrillé require, all relations or collaborations are necessarily suspended with this community. We hope that this measure will be temporary.”

If there are activities planned with the Avrillé friary, I would ask that you advise the Father Prior that you cannot keep them.

Thank you for your compliance with these directives, I beg to add, dear father, the expression of my priestly devotion to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Fr. Regis de Cacqueray

Yes, but on the other hand, it also shows where the Dominicans stand.

Where the Capuchins stand is a bit uncertain, however.

soulguard · « **Reply #3 on:** May 14, 2014, 10:11:04 AM »

Food for thought.

soulguard · « **Reply #4 on:** May 14, 2014, 10:17:27 AM »

I read on this forum before that the Dominicans also split with some of the brothers going to start a new friary which is in Belgium.

Any information on this?

B from A · « **Reply #5 on:** May 14, 2014, 11:01:10 AM »

Quote from: soulguard

I read on this forum before that the Dominicans also split with some of the brothers going to start a new friary which is in Belgium.

I think a much more accurate way to put it is that some of the monks starting a new monastery in Belgium split with them.

Quote

MONS . FELLAY : ABUSES OF DOMINICAN AVRILLE

Friday, January 31, 2014

Article based on this information the forum A évêque s'est leve : here and here :

A new Dominican convent was founded by the Brotherhood in Belgium on 13 November. The Dominicans that comprise five.

These five monks left Avrillé on different dates, some of them secretly , being received in various priories and houses of the fraternity [SSPX], though, according to canon law , they should be considered fugitives and apostates ( canons 644 § 1 and 2, and 2385 ) . Your situation is obviously illegitimate , not only by the way they were , but because to stay out of the obedience due to superiors.

Since then they have been ministering wearing the Dominican habit (which is against the constitution of this religious order and the canon 639 ) with permission from Bishop de Galarreta , which , incidentally, is not his superior.

Bishop Fellay asked Avrillé Dominicans accept the creation of a subsidiary monastery with monks who had separated from the community. But Father Pierre Marie ( prior of Avrillé ) was not favorable to this foundation . Due to the insistence of Bishop Fellay , Father Pierre Marie relented, but on condition that the new convent was under the jurisdiction of Avrillé , and Avrillé appoint the top of the new convent. Bishop Fellay gave his word , he made a formal commitment that the convent would not be created if these conditions are not met, also pledged that if the monks did not accept , Bishop Fellay would ask them to stop the habit because they were not received as Dominicans priories in the fraternity , as had been happening for a long time .

The Dominicans of the convent offered Avrillé was created in Belgium , on a property that had been offered to them , but suddenly changed his mind Monsignor Fellay . Lacking to his word, gave the order to foundation of the convent , which happened in November last year, being established under the direct jurisdiction of Bishop de Galarreta , which appointed the new top . But ultimately , the real superior is Bishop Fellay . The convent was founded in the same property as Avrillé had initially offered .

The Dominicans with amazement learned of the broken engagement through rumors , they tried to find out why . The obvious reason , of course, is that Bishop Fellay and does not " had confidence " because of its " doctrinal intransigence " ( about the agreement with Rome ) . Recall that in 2012 , Bishop Fellay denied ordination to the Dominicans and Capuchins seminarians.

Bishop Fellay went over the constitutions of the order Dominica also did not respect what the fraternity was established in relation to communities of tradition, and even his decision was made without consulting the five founding fathers of the new convent in Belgium.

Therefore, Bishop Fellay is solely responsible .

Archbishop Lefebvre 's position relative to friendly communities , was always that of a father giving advice , herding spirits, but never want to replace the top of the order or imposed in the internal affairs of religious. Unfortunately , long , Monsignor Fellay and Bishop de Galarreta no longer fulfill this role , putting oil on the fire to want to intervene directly in the affairs of the Dominicans . This is another sad episode shows that Bishop Fellay is not in place as superior general : confused with the head of a single party.

Schmidberger Father recalls in his letter of 27 May 1991 addressed to the monasteries and convents of Tradition, which authority has the fraternity friends on communities :

The current situation of Roma , which has lasted twenty years and ordinary places turn prevents us , as you know, the diocesan or Roman ecclesiastical authority for all matters relating to the vows of religion , common life, etc.Es why some of you frequently resorted , in recent years , Monsignor Lefebvre as an authority of substitution. In fact , he was more a father , counselor and friend to authority in the sense jurídico.Después his death , the General Council of the SSPX Bishop Fellay asked to fulfill this role , as the intention in life by our Founder . it is in this spirit of service that bishop Fellay exercise this office, not as a member of the SSPX , but as a Catholic bishop. Each community is absolutely free to go or not to him. Neither he nor the fraternity have the slightest intention of putting your hands in the other communities , the way it is . Also to be seen in action , the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction and not ordinary , until the day in the Church things back to order. I express in this letter our burning desire to keep with you the deep bonds of friendship that have joined us for many years .

Quote

The jurisdiction of Bishop Fellay and abuse of the Fraternity

Published April 7, 2014 by admin
download PDF

A few years ago , Bishop Galarreta asked the father Thomas Aquinas resign as father prior of Santa Cruz. Shortly thereafter, Bishop Fellay asked, " to meet the Community and submit your resignation to all " ( letter of 12 January 2010). What right and what jurisdiction can be done such things? To better ' convince ' Bishop Galarreta also assured him that the district of America no longer send any vocation in Santa Cruz. That we tried these pressures? The common good or shelved all opponents to an agreement with modernist Rome ?

June 21, 2012 , Father Thouvenot called Father Prior Avrillé to ask him : "Father, if we sign an agreement with Rome, do you follow us ? " The father confessed prior to ignore what doctrinal basis would be based agreement with Rome. Father Thouvenot replied : "Indeed, you do not know this text , I can not contact you . It is secret. You have to trust us. " The Prior father asked him two days of reflection. The next morning, before the deadline , the Dominicans received a fax from Bishop Fellay stating their refusal to order the three brothers of the community. Following this fax , Father Thouvenot wrote:

"I realized our conversation yesterday to Bishop Fellay, but obviously the mere fact that you did listen to the delirious sermon Abbe Koller to the community, such that it take more than 24 hours for answer a simple question of confidence in his authority, were enough to convince him that he had better postpone the ordinations . This morning, he sent a fax that you learn you . Hoping that you will close ranks and restore normal relations harmonious cooperation, I assure you of my religious devotion. "

These two facts amply justify the title of our article. Unfortunately other facts may further illustrate the gravity of the situation .

By what principle a prior or senior district may call you to ban you invite to a meeting with you, Bishop Williamson or a priest who does not or no longer part of the SSPX ? By what authority can they forbid you to call Bishop Williamson to give the sacrament of confirmation to your children? By what right can they ask a friend you exclude religious of the Third Order ? Etc. .

To answer these questions, we would like to revisit an article that went unnoticed too : Only master on board, Bishop Fellay ... This article contains valuable remarks. The author finds a praxis revealing a theory that was underlying long but recently broke into the open. SSPX is taken if the Church at least for the ' lifeboat ' and is misused as if it had an ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful forget what she taught in its infancy : Given the state of necessity, SSPX has a court substitute .

We would return here briefly the essential passages of this article , and add some comments .

Doctrinal decline

The year 2012 was marked by an apparent change in perspective. Before 2012, the SSPX formally exclude the possibility of a " reconciliation " with Rome before seeing reconnect with Traditional Magisterium . This position was based on the experience of over thirty years of relations with Rome. But in 2012 , the General Chapter has explicitly acknowledged the possibility of a practical with current Roman authorities , without doctrinal agreement , as confirmed on 27 June 2013, the statement of the four bishops of the Fraternity least one agreement.

Father Jean Capuchin has highlighted the decline in the fight of faith :

"For years , the Archbishop to the coronation sought to discuss with Rome. [...] Archbishop Lefebvre were statements rather in the practical sense by saying let us do the experiment of Tradition . [...] And then he realized he was too far, he said , he acknowledged . May 5, when he signed the protocol. It was too far because it compromised on the issue of doctrine. He passed before the practice. [ ... ] In the Fideliter No. 66 of December 88 on the cover it says : " On one occasion seminars, I ask my conditions. " This is what Archbishop Lefebvre said after the sacred and has always held until death and his legacy . [...] For years and years, this principle has been held. [...] Unfortunately , for some time , which may be after the end of the Roman discussed , that is to say the fall of 2011 , little by little , we are obliged to note that the authorities of the Brotherhood abandoned this principle . "
Pastoral cure

Facing the congregation and clergy who dare to publicly express their opposition to this decline, deviant authorities demonstrate hardening, because as noted by Louis Veuillot : " there is no more sectarian than liberal"

One of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre was removed , many priests had to leave the Brotherhood , children were expelled from schools in the United States, the faithful were fired , others were threatened or actually deprived of the sacraments France, England , Poland, Mexico, Uruguay , Argentina , Italy, etc. . In France , a good thought prior to launch to the faithful : "If I hear that come to Mass people who criticize the Brotherhood throughout the week, I will not hesitate to deny the sacraments " .

For the same reason , in June 2012, the ordinations of the Capuchins and the Dominicans were canceled. A priest who asked the reason, Bishop Fellay said : "It's a lack of self-confidence I felt vis-à -vis these communities ... and it's so serious to order a priest, that I ' I'd wait ... "( 9 November 2012 , Paris ) To measure the grotesque and monstrous arbitrariness of this response, the faithful should know that the Capuchin deacons were retired with those of the Brotherhood when it was signified their refusal to order . Now compare this reaction to Bishop Fellay community friends to the reaction of Archbishop Lefebvre facing the Roman pressure :

"You know that the nuncio came to ask that I did not make the ordinations , so of course I told him not to ten days ordinations we can do such a thing, it is not possible . I would even humanly speaking . These young priests worked for five years to prepare for ordination, and ten days after their ordination , while all parents are willing to come , while the first Masses are announced everywhere, it is at this time then they ask me not to ordinations . Ordinations are legitimate . These seminarians who have studied regularly , have a natural right to have the result of preparation they have done. "( COSPECSimon 32A)

Bishop Fellay had it right and moral for him doing so ? Priests who deprive the faithful of sacraments or worried consciences are they entitled to?
A court locuм ...

The Compendium of the moral theology of St. Alphonsus Liguori says (T II , § 612 , p 362. ) " Censorship can not be brought against the infidels, or against the persons on whom it has no jurisdiction " . (By Father Joseph Frassinetti , prior of Santa Sabina in Genoa, Volumes I and II translated by Father P. Fourez , Bachelor of Theology , 1889)

Now we know that the conciliar Church denies any jurisdiction SSPX . The power of jurisdiction of Bishop Fellay is therefore not just the Vatican. Bishop Fellay and his priests have no "ordinary jurisdiction" but a "jurisdiction substitute " that is " a national emergency given the right to every bishop and every priest if necessary , for the good common , when it has not received from the authorities the necessary powers . "( Salt of the Earth No. 87 , p. 139-140 )

"It must be clear that a locuм authority does not have the same characteristics as the existing authority usually in the Church : it is carried out in each case , is not so usual , that is, say that those who benefit may withdraw , substitute and authority has no power to bring them back . It depends on the needs of the faithful since the crisis. This is the extent to which the faithful need these bishops or priests for the salvation of their souls , the Church authority creates this link between them . All this shows that the court substitute gives a delicate exercise limited authority . The judicial authority of the bishop from his appointment not a Roman , but the need for the salvation of souls , he must exercise with a special delicacy. "( Lefebvre note of 20 February 1991 quoted in Salt of the Earth No. 87 , p. 142)

Archbishop Lefebvre during the Mass of Lille, in 1976 , stated clearly : " They say I am the leader of the tradition. I'm not the leader of anything. " Think of having an ordinary court when she was only substitute is" basis for our apostolate on a false and illusory basis. "( From a letter of Archbishop Lefebvre cited by the Abbe Woodpecker in Des consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre ... A schism ? Fideliter 1988 , p. 55-60 ).
Become a perverse domination ...

Today , everything happens as if the General House of the SSPX thought would align all the faithful and all religious institutions claiming Tradition on personal options.

The faithful are under no obligation to approve Bishop Fellay in his search for a personal prelature . England, Italy, the faithful were asked ( by phone! ) Not set foot in chapels on the grounds of having made websites criticizing the new direction of Bishop Fellay ... Religious prohibited a gentleman serve Mass as he usually did in the chapel of the convent his crime have to attend Mass a priest ' resistant ' . The ORDO 2014, with its repertoire of traditional places of worship removed from its list the Benedictine monastery of Santa cruz (Nova Friburgo , Brazil). However, since the sacred , the theological position of the monastery had not changed . When eventually such tyranny ?

The good of souls is not the purpose of the authority. The Brotherhood is out of the limits of the jurisdiction of substitution . It usurps a role she did not and this is not theft Church : it is sectarian .
Immoral authority

The change of course , came to light in 2012 , put the Brotherhood beyond the limits of its legitimate power. Repression , exclusion and sanctions that soweth to the winds show a serious moral drift and certifies a autovalidante mentality , despotic , completely devoid of charity. In France , a prior addressed a knight of Our Lady of 86 years in a work meeting in the dependence of the priory by these words: " Get out ." His crime : being against an agreement with Rome ...

"In controversial issues , preachers and confessors must be careful not to define a thing is sin , especially mortal sin, on the authority of theologians or even many theologians ; such a decision requires the universal consent of the authors . Similarly, a confessor could not, without injustice , refuse absolution to a penitent decided to act contrary to one supported by one or more theological opinion , but challenged by other Catholic theologians. "( Frassinetti , Volume II , p. 27).

"As confessors have no authority to decide theological questions , I find as De Lugo and other authors quoted by St. Alphonsus , the penitent is obviously entitled to his opinion in practice , as long as this opinion is supported by good theological and has therefore a strong probability , at least extrinsic ; and that, even though the penitent would be the most ignorant man in the world and that the opinion would seem absolutely false confessor . "( , Frassinetti , Volume II notes 141 448 )

But many priests publicly express a theological point of view legitimate and argued contrary to that of Bishop Fellay: Williamson , former Director and former seminary professor Father Bernard Fellay , abbots Chazal, Pfeiffer, Girouard, Father John , father Pierre -Marie ...

The pretext of the common good , the characterization of ' subversive ' laid against contrary to Menzingen opinions have no value because the true common good never goes against the moral and when you want to change the sly purpose an organization , it is a little short to qualify as ' subversive ' those who resist precisely this insidious subversion. In reality, the Brotherhood wants to expand his power. And it takes no account of the particularity of the court which is his. It feels right to decide everything inside the small world that is the faithful and congregations attached to Tradition . Perpetuate the priesthood, keep the Holy Mass and the Doctrine of the Faith , bringing the sacraments are goals that are no longer sufficient to few. They dream to be a sort of super Diocese receiving the papal protection ...

One last fact to grasp how far can the vertigo of domination. On November 13, 2013 , Bishop Fellay decided after returning to his commitment, 5 perpetually professed religious of the Dominican Avrillé who were outside the convent community must come together in a house to become a " second leg " to Steffeshausen . Bishop Fellay named Bishop Galarreta top of this house. Written to Bishop Fellay and Bishop Galarreta asking them to show "how such a procedure can be called according to Tradition , the right of religious and even natural law" letters went unanswered .

The attitude of these two bishops differs from that of Archbishop Lefebvre . Father Schmidberger in a letter dated 27 May 1991 addressed to the religious tradition recognized that Archbishop Lefebvre " was more Father , counselor, and friend authority in the legal sense " and that he " used to Archbishop Lefebvre as a authority substitute . " In 1991 , it was obvious that" each community is absolutely free to apply or not to [ Bishop Fellay ] . Neither he nor the Brotherhood have the slightest intention of putting the hand on the other communities in any way whatsoever. Also he will always see its action the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction , not ordinary ... "

In 1981, Archbishop Lefebvre solemnly protested that he would not be the " Master General " of the Order. But in October 2012, to Bellaigue Bishop Galarreta said the father prior Avrillé he should consider Bishop Fellay as taking the place of the Master General of the Order .

Bishop Fellay and Bishop Galarreta therefore feel entitled to intervene directly in the religious life of a community. They can make out the subjects, give them exclaustration no time limit - regardless of canon law or constitutions of the institute - or allow them to stay out of the convent and to the apostolate , without any control without even prevent their lawful superiors . They can allow them to start a " new line ". They can still maintain a secret correspondence with religious and encourage them to provide intelligence reports and to be wary of their lawful superiors .
As a result ...

How can we trust these bishops? What does the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X ? Obedience without murmuring and a blind trust? But how demanding such a thing when we know that the top of this Fraternity as good approves his statement of 15 April 2012 which recognizes the current magisterium , the legitimacy of the Mass of Paul VI and the new canon law.

Not only is the new direction of the SSPX is not mandatory but it is dangerous and suicidal. It can therefore be criticized freely in private and in public. All censures leveled against those who want to continue the good fight of faith resisting rallying maneuvers are null and constitute an abuse of power. Censorship of Bishop Fellay to silence his political opponents are more sins that cause a scandal to the faith. By dint of frequent modern , the General House grabbed the Roman vice subversion.

"It is B. A. ba Modernism bend the faithful blackmail virtue and love of God, and the abolition , in the name of virtue, indispensable means of education and conservation . Modernism operates victims in the name of obedience, through the pride of suspicion on any critical reforms in the name of respect for the Pope on behalf of missionary zeal , charity and unity . "( Father Calmel , Letter dated 8 August 1973)

B from A · « **Reply #6 on:** May 14, 2014, 02:32:24 PM »

In case anyone is paying attention, I think I have the links mixed up in the post above. I think link #1 is for article #2 and vice-versa. Sorry for any confusion. And of course, they are just google translations.

SpemMiram · « **Reply #7 on:** May 15, 2014, 05:28:30 AM »

I'm a little confused about this all...

Is it known, which brothers are gone to Belgium?

Is it possible to visit the new convent in Belgium?

There is no official statement by the SSPX about that...

obediens · « **Reply #8 on:** May 15, 2014, 07:31:24 AM »

As I posted before, the Capuchins must still be in good standing with the SSPX, otherwise Bishop Fellay wouldn't have allowed their ordinations to the minor orders/subdiaconate earlier in the year.

The friars have been removed from this site: http://laportelatine.org/ordres/ordlatin/religieux.php

Yet, the Nuns are still listed here: http://laportelatine.org/ordres/ordlatin/religieuses.php

B from A · « **Reply #9 on:** May 15, 2014, 07:58:25 AM »

Quote from: SpemMiram

I'm a little confused about this all...

Is it known, which brothers are gone to Belgium?

My understanding is the brothers in the new monastery in Belgium under Bp. de Galarreta are the renegades who left Avrillé because they prefer +F's liberal direction to the Traditional stance of the Dominicans of Avrillé. (If I understand correctly, some of them left even before the events of 2012.) Is that what you were asking, or are you looking for actual names?

Quote from: obediens

The friars have been removed from this site: http://laportelatine.org/ordres/ordlatin/religieux.php

Yet, the Nuns are still listed here: http://laportelatine.org/ordres/ordlatin/religieuses.php

Yes, my understanding is the nuns are going with +F rather than the Dominicans friars of Avrillé.

Here is an old post about donating. I assume the info is still accurate?

Quote from: ancien regime

I have graciously received permission to post an appeal on behalf of the Traditional Dominican fathers of Avrille, France. I am a Tertiary with these Dominicans and have learned of their current financial crisis.

DOMINICANS OF AVRILLÉ NEED OUR HELP

Sitting by and watching everything for which we have fought for so long seeming to fall down around us can invoke a feeling of helpless frustration. If you really long to do something material to help in the fight for Traditional Catholicism, I have a timely suggestion for you.

The Traditional Dominican fathers of Avrillé, France (and their cloistered sisters who live nearby) are in urgent need of financial support. These strong stalwarts of Traditional Catholicism need our help. They have had at least one preaching/retreat event cancelled by those who shall remain nameless.

To quote one of the fathers:

We have literally run out of all funds, and yet we still have to keep up with monthly utilities payments, salaries for the school personnel, taxes, etc... With the economic crisis, donations have become rare and many families are not able to pay the tuition for our schools. We are happy to be all the more dependent on Providence, and we offer joyously our privations for the spiritual and material benefit of our benefactors (for whom we pray every day).

If you can help, please send any donation you can afford to one of these addresses:

France:
Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes
49240 Avrillé
France

United States : (donations are tax deductible)
The Association of St. Dominic (please specify Acct #02-25916)
P.O. Box 23
Huntington, IN 46750

Canada:
The Association of St. Dominic (please specify Acct #40-91531)
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
201 – 21st Street East
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K OB8
Canada

U.K.:
The Association of St. Dominic (please specify Acct #00105564)
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Edinburgh
Comiston Branch
17 Comiston Road
Edinburgh EH106AA

Thank you and may God richly bless you for any help you can give.

ancien regime · « **Reply #10 on:** May 15, 2014, 08:29:45 AM »

Thank you B from A for posting the donation information. This treachery from Fr. de Cacqueray is really not surprising as he is the one who convinced the contemplative sisters to go with Bishop Fellay.

The five who left Avrille and have made the new foundation are: Fr. Albert, Fr. Jean-Dominique, Fr. Thomas, Fr. Raymond and a brother. B from A is right in that they had all left Avrille years ago, but continued to wear the habit despite it being against the Dominican constitutions, Church tradition, and the request of the Father Prior of Avrille. In earlier times they would have been consider excommunicate for leaving the order without permission.

Here is a copy of the longer article that was posted on the Recusant:

Bishop Fellay's Jurisdiction and the Abuses of the SSPX

Original: http://www.lasapiniere.info/archives/1848

Some years ago, Bishop de Galarreta asked Dom Tomas Aquinas to step down as superior of Santa Cruz monastery in Brazil. Not long afterwards, Bishop Fellay asked him: "to call a meeting of the whole community and announce your resignation in front of them all." (Letter 12th January, 2010) By what right or law and with what jurisdiction can they do these sorts of things? So as to help "convince" him, Bishop de Galarreta promised Dom Tomas Aquinas that the US District would be sending no further vocations to Santa Cruz. To what purpose was pressure such as this being applied? The common good or the tactical removal of anyone who opposed an agreement with modernist Rome?

On 21st June 2012 Fr. Thouvenot (Secretary General of the SSPX, based in Menzingen) called the Dominican prior of Avrillé to ask him: "Father, if we sign a deal with Rome, will you follow us?" The Prior said he was unaware of the doctrinal basis on which such an agreement with Rome would be founded. Fr. Thouvenot retorted: "As it happens, you don't know this text. I can't communicate it to you. It's a secret. You have to trust us." The prior asked for two days to reflect. The following morning, well before those two days were up, the Dominicans received a fax from Bishop Fellay letting them know of his refusal to ordain the three brothers from their community. Following this fax, Fr. Thouvenot wrote,

"I have informed Bishop Fellay of our conversation yesterday, but visibly the simple fact that you made the community listen to the delirious sermon of Fr. Koller, like the fact that you need more than 24 hours to answer a simple question about trust in authority, was enough to convince him that it would be best to defer the ordinations. This morning he sent you a fax to inform you of this. Hoping that you will be able to tighten things back up and re-establish a normal relation of harmonious collaboration, I assure you of my religious devotion."

These two facts amply justify the title of this article. Unfortunately, other facts can further illustrate the gravity of the situation.

According to what principle can a prior or a superior telephone you to forbid you from inviting Bishop Williamson or a priest who is not (or who is no longer) in the SSPX to a gathering which will take place in your own home? By what authority can they forbid you from calling on Bishop Williamson to give the sacrament of confirmation to your children? By what right demand that an allied religious order exclude you from the Third Order? Etc...

In order to answer these questions, we would like to return to an article which went too little noticed, ("The Only Master on Board: Bishop Fellay encourages withholding the sacraments from resistance laity" http://www.icres.pro/article-seul-maitre-a-bord-mgr-fellay-tente-de-faire-interdire-de-sacrements-les-laics-refractaires-122104738.html) This article contains some valuable remarks. In it, the author points out a praxis which reveals an underlying theory that has only just begun to come out into the open. The SSPX believes that it is, if not the Church, then at least the 'life boat,' and abusively behaves as if it had ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful, forgetting what it used to teach people: due to the state of necessity it only has supplied jurisdiction.

We would like here to look again at some essential passages from this article, and to add a few remarks to them.

A Doctrinal Weakening

The year 2012 was marked by an obvious change in perspective. Before 2012 the Society of St. Pius X officially excluded the possibility of any "reconciliation" with Rome without the latter first coming back to the Traditional Magisterium. This position was founded on more than thirty years of dealing with Rome. But in 2012, the General Chapter explicitly allowed the possibility of a practical agreement with the current Roman authorities, without there being any doctrinal agreement, as was also confirmed on 27th June 2013 by the declaration of the Society's four-bishops-minus-one.

Fr. Jean OFM Cap., highlighted this decline in the fight for the faith:
"Over the years, Archbishop Lefebvre sought discussions with Rome, all the way up to the Consecrations. [...] the Archbishop had some more or less 'practical' declarations, such as saying 'Let us do the experiment of Tradition'. [...] Then he realised that he had gone too far; he said so; he recognised it. On 5th May [1988] when he signed the protocol, he went too far because he had compromised on the question of doctrine. He had put the practical side of things first. ... In Fideliter no.66, of December 1988, it was written on the cover: 'A une reprise des colloques je poserai mes conditions' ("If talks are renewed, I will put conditions") That's what Archbishop Lefebvre said after the consecrations, that's what he held to until the day of his death, that's what he left us. ... For years and years this principle was held onto. ... Unfortunately, for a little while now, we can say since the end of the Roman discussions, so Autumn 2011, little by little we are forced to note that the authorities of the Society have abandoned this principle."

A Pastoral Hardening

Faced with faithful and clergy who dared to make public their opposition to this doctrinal weakening, the deviant authorities demonstrated a hardening, since as Louis Veuillot says: "There is no greater sectarian than a liberal."

One of the four bishops consacrated by Archbishop Lefebvre was thrown out, numerous priests have been forced out, children expelled from schools in the US, faithful fired, threatened with or actually denied the sacraments in France, England, Poland, Mexico, Uraguay, Argentina, Italy, etc. In France, one prior thought it fine to say to his faithful: "If I learn of people coming to Mass here who criticise the Society all week long, I won't hesitate to deny them the sacraments."

For the same reason, in June 2012 the ordinations of the Capuchins and Dominicans were cancelled. To a priest who asked the rason for this, Bishop Fellay replied: "I felt a lack of personal trust from these communities... and ordaining a priest is such a serious thing that I preferred to wait..." (9th November 2012, Paris) To appreciate just how gotesque and monstrously arbitrary this answer is, the faithful need to know that the Capuchin deacons were already on retreat with the deacons of the Society when they were told that they would not be being ordained. Let us now compare this reaction of Bishop Fellay towards allied religious communities with how Archbishop Lefebvre reacted to Roman pressure:

"You know that the Nuncio came to demmand that I not proceed withthe ordinations, so of course I said to him: 'You can't just do something like that a mere ten days before the ordinations, that's just not possible. I would say even humanly speaking. These young priests have been working for the last five years to prepare for their ordination, and ten days before the ordination, even though their parents are ready to come, even though the First Masses have been announced everywhere, at that moment I am asked not to do the ordinations. Ordinations which are legitimate. These seminarians who have done regular studies have a natural right to have the result of the preparations that they have made.' " (Cospec 32A)
Did Bishop Fellay have a right, was it moral, for him to act thus? Are priests who deny the sacraments to the faithful or who disturb their consciences right to do so?

A Supplied Jurisdiction...

The Compendium of Moral Theology of St. Alphonsus Ligouri says (T II, § 612, p. 362) :

"Penalties cannot be applied to non-believers, nor to persons over which one does not have jurisdiction."

(French: « La censure ne peut être portée contre les infidèles, ni contre les personnes sur lesquelles on n’a pas de juridiction ». (Fr. Joseph Frassinetti, prior of Sainte Sabine à Gênes, Tomes I & II translated into French by Fr. P. Fourez STL, 1889)

But we know that the conciliar church refuses any jurisdiction to the SSPX. Bishop Fellay's power of jurisdiction therefore does not come from the Vatican. Bishop Fellay and his priests do not exercise any "ordinary jurisdiction" but a "supplied jurisdiction" which is "an emergency jurisdiction given by the law to every bishop and every priest in case of necessity, for the common good, when he has not received from the authorities the necessary powers." ('Sel de a Terre' 87 pp.139-140)

"However, it must be borne in mind that an authority which is supplied does not have the same characteristics as authority which exists ordinarily in the Church. It is exercised case-by-case, and is thus not habitual: in other words the people who benefit from it can always withdraw from it, and the supplied authority has no power to make them return. It is dependent on the need of the faithful, given the state of crisis. To the extent that the faithful need these bishops or priests for the salvation of their souls, the Church creates this link of authority between them. All of that shows that supplied jurisdiction gives a limited authority which has to be exercised rather delicately. The jurisdictional authority of a bishop, coming not from a Roman nomination but from the necessity of the salvation of souls, must be exercised with an especial delicacy." (Archbishop Lefebvre, note of 20th Feb. 1990, quoted in 'Sel de la Terre.')

At the Mass in Lille, in 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre declared very clearly: "They say that I am the leader of Tradtion. I am not the leader of anything at all." ["On dit que je suis le chef de file de la tradition. Je ne suis le chef de file de rien du tout." ] To think that his jurisdiction was ordinary when really it is only supplied jurisdiction would be: "...to found our apostolate on a false and illusory basis." (Extract from a letter of Abp. Lefebvre, quoted by Fr. Pivert in the book "Archbishop Lefebvre's Consecrations... a Schism?" Fideliter 1988, pp.55-60).

...Become A Perverse Power

Today everything takes places as though the General House of the Society of St. Pius X feels it has to force all the faithful and religious communities of Tradition to align themselves with their personal choices.

The faithful has no obligation to approve of Bishop Fellay's quest for a personal prelature. In England and Italy faithful were told (by telephone!) that, due to their being involved in running websites critical of the new direction of Bishop Fellay, they would be asked not to set foot in the chapels any longer... Some religious asked a gentleman not to serve Mass any longer at the convent where he had always served the Mass: his crime was to have served the Mass of a 'resistance' priest. The 2014 ORDO with it's list of Traditional Mass Centres shows that the Benedictine Monastery of Santa Cruz (Nova Friburgo, Brazil) has been deleted from the list. And yet since the Consecrations, the theological position of this monastery has not changed one bit. Where will such a tyranny end?

The good of souls is no longer the purpose of authority. The SSPX has gone beyond the limits of supplied jurisdiction. It is usurping a role which it does not have, and this usurpation is not of the Church: it is sectarian.

An Immoral Authority

The change of course, made obvious in 2012, has placed the Society outside the limits of its legitimate power. The repressions, exclusions and sanctions that it throws out like confetti are evidence of a serious moral drift, and attest to a despotic, self-validating mentality, entirely devoid of charity. In France, at a work meeting at a priory, the prior addressed a Knight of Our Lady, an 86 year-old gentleman, with the following words: "F--- off!"
The man's crime: being against an agreement with Rome...

"In controversial questions, preachers and confessors must be on their guard to ensure that they define what is a sin, above all mortal sin, based on the authority of moral theologians or even based on what numerous theologians say; such a decision requires the universal consent of the authors. In the same way, a confessor could not, without it being an injustice, refuse absolution to a penitent who has decided to act contrary to an opinion supported by one or several theologians but contested by other Catholic theologians." (Frassinetti, Tome II, p.27)

"Since confessors have no authority to decide theological questions, I find along with De Lugo and other authors quoted by St. Alphonsus, that the penitent clearly has the right to put his opinion into practice, as long as this opinion is supported by good theologians and that as a result it has a solid probability, at least extrinsically; and that is so even if the penitent were the most ignorant man in the world and his opinion seemed absolutely false to his confessor." (Frassinetti, Tome II, note 141 of No.148)

And yet lots of priests publicly manifest a legitimate and well-argued theological point of view which is different to that of Bishop Fellay: Bishop Williamson (former seminary rector and former seminary teacher of Mr. Bernard Fellay), Frs. Chazal, Pfeiffer, Girouard, Fr. Jean OFM Cap., Fr. Pierre-Marie OP...

The claim that it is for the common good that anyone whose opinions are contrary to Menzingen is labelled as "subversive" has no value, since the true common good can never go contrary to the moral law, and when someone is trying quietly to change the purpose of an organisation, it just won't do to call "subversive" all those who justifiably resist precisely that insidious subversion. In reality, the Society wants to expand its power. And for that reason it no longer pays much attention to the characteristics of the jurisdiction which it has. It thinks it has the right to decide everything that goes on inside the little world made up of the faithful and religious congregations allied to it. Handing on the priesthood, preserving the Holy Mass and the True Faith, bringing the sacraments - these are goals which are no longer sufficient for a certain small number in the SSPX. Those people are dreaming of a sort of super-diocese benefiting from Papal protection...

Here is one last fact to help make it clear just how far the vertigo of domination can go. On 13th November 2013, after returning from his engagement Bishop Fellay decided that the five fully professed religious of the Dominican community of Avrillé who were living outside of their community had to 'regroup' in a house, so as to become a 'second branch' in Steffeshausen. Bishop Fellay named Bishop de Galarreta superior of this house. Letters written to Bishop Fellay and to Bishop de Galarreta asking them to show, "how such a procedure can be said to be in conformity with Tradition, with the laws of the religious and even with natural law" have remained unanswered.

The attitude of these two bishops differs from that of Archbishop Lefebvre. Fr. Schmidberger, in his letter of 27th May 1991 addressed to the religious of Tradition recognised that Archbishop Lefebvre "...was more of a Father, counsellor and friend than an authority in the juridical sense," and that people, "had recourse to Archbishop Lefebvre as to a supplied authority." In 1991 it was obvious that, "each community is absolutely free to address themselves or not to [Bishop Fellay]. Neither he nor the Society have the slightest intention of meddling inside other communities in any way whatsoever. Also his actions must always be seen as the exercise of an extraordinary jurisdiction and not ordinary..."

In 1981 Archbishop Lefebvre solemnly protested that he did not want to be "the Master General" of the order. But in October 2012, at Bellaigue, Bishop de Galarreta told the Superior of the Dominicans of Avrillé that he had to consider Bishop Fellay as taking the place of the Master General of the [Dominican] Order.

Bishop Fellay and Bishop de Galarreta therefore think that they have the right to intervene directly in the life of a religious community. They can take individual members out of their community, giving them an exclaustration without time limit - without needing to trouble themselves about Canon Law or the constitutions of the institute - or authorise them to stay outside the convent and have their own apostolate, without any control and without even letting their legitimate superiors know. They can authorise them to found a "new branch." They can, furthermore, maintain a secret correspondence with individual religious and encourage them to provide secret reports of what goes on inside, and encourage them to distrust their legitimate superiors.

As A Result, Therefore...

How can we have confidence in such bishops as those? What does the Priestly Society of St. Pius X want? An obedience without the slightest murmur and a blind trust? But how can such a thing be asked for when we know that the superior of this same Society approved as good his declaration of 15th April 2012 which recognises the current magisterium, the legitimacy of the Mass of Paul VI and the new Code of Canon Law?

Not only is the new direction of the Society not obligatory, it is dangerous and suicidal. We are therefore perfectly at liberty to criticise it in private and in public. All the punishments meted out against those who wish to continue the fight for the faith by resisting the manoeuvring towards an agreement are null and constitute an abuse of power. What's more, Bishop Fellay's punishments to silence the opponents of his policies are sins which cause a scandal for the faith. Due to their frequenting the moderns, the General House has caught the illness which is the Roman vice of subversion.

"Using virtue and the love of God, and the abolition, in the name of virtue, of the indispensable means of formation and conservation, to blackmail the faithful into bending - that's modernism at its most basic. Modernism controls its victims in the name of obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride which is cast on any criticism of their reforms, in the name of respect for the Pope, in the name of missionary zeal, of charity, and of unity."
(Fr. Calmel, Letter of 8th August, 1973)

SpemMiram · « **Reply #11 on:** May 15, 2014, 08:53:14 AM »

Quote from: obediens

The friars have been removed from this site: http://laportelatine.org/ordres/ordlatin/religieux.php

But why are the 'renegades' (in Belgium) not listed there now?

Domitilla · « **Reply #12 on:** May 15, 2014, 09:04:13 AM »

ancien regime, thank you for the above information. Truly, your (most excellent) post took my breath away and rendered me speechless ...

Domitilla · « **Reply #13 on:** May 15, 2014, 09:58:34 AM »

As I sit here, asking Our Holy and Blessed Mother to provide me with the necessary light to guide my way and future course, I am struck by Matthew, Chapter 10:

".... And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me, he is not worthy of Me. And he that taketh not up his cross and followeth Me, is not worthy of Me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for Me, shall find it ....."

It would be good for +Fellay and his cohorts to reread Dante's Inferno: Cantos XXXIII and XXXIV, to discover what could possibly await them if they continue travelling this hellbound path. God is ever merciful in preparing traitors for their final destinies - He puts ice into their very veins.

Wessex · « **Reply #14 on:** May 16, 2014, 03:32:25 AM »

Big mistake for these small communities to make themselves dependent on the SSPX for both material and spiritual needs. They are now learning the hard way about making pacts with the devil! The bursar-bishop of Menzingen will dispose of them as part of the new corporate plan, so all these religious as individuals should now think about whom they are serving and not assume their devious superiors are of like mind.

Fragmentation seems to be the future of the trad scene which leads one to conclude that much original unity within bodies was weak and could not withstand the machinations of those who would lead them and the generational drift of the laity. As a result we are testing the concept of the 'loose association' as a way of avoiding future structurally-based problems and may find that horizontal management is better than nothing. It is the only way if there are no honest leaders around.