Author Topic: Father Angles is for an accord with Rome (Read 23670 times)

Azul · « **Reply #60 on:** April 15, 2014, 05:46:46 PM »

I cannot say that I know what is is Fr. Angles' mind concerning the "deal". I have not asked him. But unlike many of you who seem to know his every motive, I know him well. And I would like to take to task those of you who say that Fr. Angles wants a deal because he is old and he wants comforts.

For your information, Fr. Angles was born into wealthy Spanish family of nobles. He renounced the inheritance of a title and much, much more to become a lowly seminarian in the outcast Society of St. Pius X. If he was so desperate for comfort he would have returned to the "castle" a long time ago.

With his mind, talents, resources and connections, he could have spent his entire career in the Vatican if that is what he had wanted. If he is for a deal, he must believe there are some pretty compelling reasons. But surely his comfort is not even one of them. And by the way, he is not old. He suffers rheumatoid arthritis that sometimes causes him to need a cane, but that is not related to age.

I find it insulting to read that someone said they saw him because no one else at the Vatican has his profile. Right. What utter nonsense. More gossip. Let's see how much damage we can do to a good priests reputation, you know, so that the faithful will lose confidence in him. That is certainly a diabolical project.

May Our Holy Mother wrap Her mantle around Fr. Angles and all of the good priests of Tradition, wherever they are found. Amen!

Nobody · « **Reply #61 on:** April 15, 2014, 06:00:26 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Azul:
Quote
May the Good God forgive you your remarks and I would suggest some reading on the life of Archbishop Lefebvre, who no doubt will be canonized after the restoration of the Church as the great champion of Tradition that he was. We owe him a debt of gratitude that is enormous and it is about time that all who call themselves Catholic acknowledge

I find your reaction rather unbelievable. The fact remains, whatever some of his great admirers might say, including the ones you mentioned, that ABL is, to date, not a canonized saint. You write that "no doubt" he will be canonized "after the restoration of the Church." That is, at best, hopeful speculation. ABL was certainly a "great champion" of tradition. But since he has not been canonized, he can hardly be described as the "greatest saint of the 20th century." No formal declaration of sainthood for him by the Church, or universal consensus, has ever been established? Why should I be forgiven by the "Good God" for simply stating the fact? To tell you the truth, were ABL on hand to comment on your own remarks, I feel that he would take my side, not yours.
As for your comparison of ABL with St. Francis: St. Francis has been canonized. Take for example just one criterion for the canonization of a saint: A genuine saint of the Church must be shown to have performed at least two miracles ( I think) during his lifetime. Attributed to St. Francis are countless miracles. Name one for which ABL may be credited. Let's start there.
I would need to be forgiven by the "Good God" if I had stated that ABL, already recognized as a saint by Church, was not really a saint at all in my opinion. But such is not the case here.

hollingsworth,

Are you picking on the fact that ABL has not officially been declared a saint yet ? Has this not been the case with each and every saint, before they get officially recognized as such ? If people know someone well enough and believe he is a saint, even during their life, why would you dispute what they believe, based on the fact that the church has not yet made a formal decision ? Can you come up with some good reason for believing ABL is not the saint that people who knew him believe he is ?

One thing I know for certain, I owe a lot to him and his courage to fight for Tradition and found the SSPX. And I certainly will not be the first to throw a stone at him for anything in him I do not understand or agree with.

Would you have done better in his shoes ? Do you know him well enough to say he could possibly not be a saint ?

JMacQ · « **Reply #62 on:** April 15, 2014, 06:35:32 PM »

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/watchandpray/e/b23c95a9a7ebdbf69e2dd626eb2a1ed1

while bishop Fellay says nothing is happening between us and the new Rome, his canonical adviser has been spotted in Rome, at the congregation for religious, reportedly working out the future canonical status of the society of st pius x.
he was wearing a clergyman, but his physical appearance clearly gave him away, and the dates he was reported in Rome correspond to his absence from Ireland at the end of february and beginning of march.
these dealings with the congregation that manage the religious orders show that the negociations are in an advanced stage with the novus ordo.

_________

I don't know about the rest, but I drove him on Tuesday February 25 to bring Holy Communion to my wife, and he could barely walk. And he was hearing confessions all morning during Sunday March 2 while a Swiss priest from Menzugen said the 11am Holy Mass. Maybe a case of mistaken identity? I don't see how he could have gone anywhere in the past months since he has been suffering much with his arthritis. If Cassini is as I suspect one of my fellow parishoners he can confirm this, we all see him every Sunday and his pain when he stands and walks is evident. Anyway thats my contribution to this strange thread.

JMacQ · « **Reply #63 on:** April 15, 2014, 06:47:36 PM »

I remember well the date because he told us this important superior was coming and he feared he could not take proper care of him.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #64 on:** April 15, 2014, 08:45:06 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
You (Wessex) are a liar and obviously malicious! How dare you say such things. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was perhaps the greatest saint of the 20th century. He was another St. Francis in that he held up the Church almost single handedly and preserved the Mass and Tradition for fools like you.

This is the kind of Lefebvrism which scares me to death. No, ABL was not another St. Francis. No, ABL did not "single handedly" preserve the "Mass and Tradition." No, ABL is not the "greatest saint of the 20th century." By the ancient criteria established for achieving sainthood, I'm not even sure that he is a saint, much less, the greatest one of the 20th Century.

By the Ancient Criteria... we can hope and pray that he made it to Purgatory.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #65 on:** April 15, 2014, 08:54:27 PM »

Quote

Azul:
Are you picking on the fact that ABL has not officially been declared a saint yet ?

I am simply recognizing the simple fact that he is not yet declared to be a saint. What is more, the process for his canonization has not yet even begun, nor is it liable to in the present NO climate.

Quote

Has this not been the case with each and every saint, before they get officially recognized as such ? If people know someone well enough and believe he is a saint, even during their life, why would you dispute what they believe, based on the fact that the church has not yet made a formal decision ?

I think Anne Catherine Emmerich should be sainted. But she's not. I think Pius IX, whose incorrupt remains I have seen, should be a saint. He is not as yet. There are numbers of others, who, though they behaved like saints, are not declared saints. If people "believe" that such and such a one should be a saint, that does not automatically confer sainthood. I do not necessarily "dispute" what they believe. I simply dispute that in the case of ABL, his formal canonization has not taken place.

Quote

Can you come up with some good reason for believing ABL is not the saint that people who knew him believe he is ?

Well, let's start with the miracles, and we'll go from there.

Quote

One thing I know for certain, I owe a lot to him and his courage to fight for Tradition and found the SSPX. And I certainly will not be the first to throw a stone at him for anything in him I do not understand or agree with.

I do not doubt his courage, and am not throwing any stones at him. I have not even said that I disagree with him. Still, you make no solid arguments as yet.

Quote

Would you have done better in his shoes ? Do you know him well enough to say he could possibly not be a saint ?

Those remarks are a bit vacuous I would say.

Nobody · « **Reply #66 on:** April 15, 2014, 09:56:23 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

This is the kind of Lefebvrism which scares me to death. No, ABL was not another St. Francis. No, ABL did not "single handedly" preserve the "Mass and Tradition." No, ABL is not the "greatest saint of the 20th century." By the ancient criteria established for achieving sainthood, I'm not even sure that he is a saint, much less, the greatest one of the 20th Century.

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
Azul:
Are you picking on the fact that ABL has not officially been declared a saint yet ?

I am simply recognizing the simple fact that he is not yet declared to be a saint. What is more, the process for his canonization has not yet even begun, nor is it liable to in the present NO climate.

Quote
Has this not been the case with each and every saint, before they get officially recognized as such ? If people know someone well enough and believe he is a saint, even during their life, why would you dispute what they believe, based on the fact that the church has not yet made a formal decision ?

I think Anne Catherine Emmerich should be sainted. But she's not. I think Pius IX, whose incorrupt remains I have seen, should be a saint. He is not as yet. There are numbers of others, who, though they behaved like saints, are not declared saints. If people "believe" that such and such a one should be a saint, that does not automatically confer sainthood. I do not necessarily "dispute" what they believe. I simply dispute that in the case of ABL, his formal canonization has not taken place.

Quote
Can you come up with some good reason for believing ABL is not the saint that people who knew him believe he is ?

Well, let's start with the miracles, and we'll go from there.

Quote
One thing I know for certain, I owe a lot to him and his courage to fight for Tradition and found the SSPX. And I certainly will not be the first to throw a stone at him for anything in him I do not understand or agree with.

I do not doubt his courage, and am not throwing any stones at him. I have not even said that I disagree with him. Still, you make no solid arguments as yet.

Quote
Would you have done better in his shoes ? Do you know him well enough to say he could possibly not be a saint ?

Those remarks are a bit vacuous I would say.

You thought it important enough to tell us that you doubt whether ABL could possibly be considered a Saint. You have given no reason yet for this opinion, only stated an obvious fact that does neither prove nor disprove the possibility of ABL being declared a saint at some stage.

Is there another reason ? Would you be willing to tell us ? I am very skeptical of people who tell us their conclusion without telling us how they came to that conclusion.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #67 on:** April 15, 2014, 10:03:06 PM »

I would say he is the greatest saint since the Bible.

I can't think of a single saint since then to match his stature in terms of heroic virtue.

Though, by the time it is all said and done, there may be one in England who could make that claim.

stgobnait · « **Reply #68 on:** April 16, 2014, 04:11:38 AM »

anyone reading the heading of this topic.. and going to the last post of sean johnson, could be forgiven for thinking.........

hollingsworth · « **Reply #69 on:** April 16, 2014, 11:58:41 AM »

Nobody:

Quote

You thought it important enough to tell us that you doubt whether ABL could possibly be considered a Saint. You have given no reason yet for this opinion, only stated an obvious fact that does neither prove nor disprove the possibility of ABL being declared a saint at some stage.

Is there another reason ? Would you be willing to tell us ? I am very skeptical of people who tell us their conclusion without telling us how they came to that conclusion.

Not exactly. I thought it important enough to correct what I think is an incorrect perception of the Archbishop. Sean Johnson's latest remark is even more disturbing, IMO, viz. I would say he (ABL) is the greatest saint since the Bible.

WHOA!
I do not discount the possibility that ABL may one day be declared a saint. However, I would like to hear about at least one miracle which he performed before the process of canonization begins.
We still try to follow the principles laid down by the Archbishop, and the course set by him. However, in doing so, we do not feel that we are forced to recognize him necessarily as a saint or add his name to the liturgical calendar. He was a great and holy leader. He was one of the most important contemporary figures surrounding the restoration of traditional Catholicism. That admission being made still does not require that we confess him to be the greatest saint of the 20th century, or that we assume that no other "single saint" can "can match his stature in terms of heroic virtue." Oh my! That is a bit much, don't you think?

Nishant · « **Reply #70 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:04:28 PM »

Well, St. Padre Pio kissed the Archbishop's ring, and remember he could read hearts, so he knew His Grace's heart was golden, otherwise he would not have done that. Which is good enough for me.

But, while we are all allowed, indeed obliged, to venerate and love and feel personally attached to those from whom we know we have received much, Thomas Kempis says this against disputing the relative merits of the Saints in heaven,

Quote from: Imitation of Christ

Do not dispute over the merits of the Saints, which is the holier, or which the greater in the Kingdom of Heaven. This often breeds strife and unprofitable arguments, (2 Tim.2:23) feeding pride and empty boasting, from which in turn spring envy and dissension, while one proudly seeks to praise this Saint, and another that. Now, this desire to know and explore such matters is unprofitable, and is displeasing to the Saints themselves.

wallflower · « **Reply #71 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:49:50 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Well, St. Padre Pio kissed the Archbishop's ring, and remember he could read hearts, so he knew His Grace's heart was golden, otherwise he would not have done that. Which is good enough for me.

But, while we are all allowed, indeed obliged, to venerate and love and feel personally attached to those from whom we know we have received much, Thomas Kempis says this against disputing the relative merits of the Saints in heaven,

Quote from: Imitation of Christ
Do not dispute over the merits of the Saints, which is the holier, or which the greater in the Kingdom of Heaven. This often breeds strife and unprofitable arguments, (2 Tim.2:23) feeding pride and empty boasting, from which in turn spring envy and dissension, while one proudly seeks to praise this Saint, and another that. Now, this desire to know and explore such matters is unprofitable, and is displeasing to the Saints themselves.

Great quote, especially the bolded. The saints are in heaven and there more than ever do they know it is ALL. for. God. For His Glory and His Glory alone. Not only for Him but BY Him as well. They would take no personal credit and they would live the same trials over again even if they knew they would never be recognized. Our recognition here on earth means nothing to them if it is separated from bringing glory to God.

Having said that, sometimes arguments over the saints have some merit because their example directs us to heaven. If we are unsure of their sanctity, then we are unsure of whether to follow their examples. That's something that can affect us in our practice of the Faith. In our times, the sanctity or lack thereof of Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope John Paul II are two of the most pressing to figure out. Any combination of ABL = holy or not, JPII = holy or not, impacts many people in very profound ways. It isn't so much about the men themselves but about what they represented. It is worth debating even if a definitive answer is not to be known in our lifetimes. It's part of trying to migitate culpable ignorance about the Church crisis in our times, to the best of our ability of course.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #72 on:** April 16, 2014, 09:13:38 PM »

I don't know if either/neither Archbishop Lefebvre or/nor Archbishop Thuc are Saints.

For that matter, as the Church has not yet Canonized Fr. Pio... we should refrain from canonizing him ourselves.

Keep your Catholic wits about you!

Nobody · « **Reply #73 on:** April 17, 2014, 05:10:00 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

I'm not even sure that he is a saint..

Quote from: hollingsworth

He was a great and holy leader

You're contradicting yourself and I believe you're not being honest here.

Why would it irritate you if someone believes ABL was a saint ?

It irritates me that some people think JPII was a saint, and I can explain to them why I think they are wrong.

But it does not irritate me if someone believes Joe Doe was a saint. He may well be one or not, I don't know him so I can't say.

I never knew the Archbishop myself, but I certainly lean towards the opinion that he was indeed a great saint. Not many 'great and holy' leaders would stand firm against all of Rome, even while being 'excommunicated'. He may not have been perfect, but it certainly took heroic virtue. If that is not reason for considering him a saint, then maybe you could show us your criteria (other than your pet miracle argument, which seems to be your only defense).

Again, why would it irritate you if someone believes ABL was a saint ?