Okay, thanks for correcting me, but my overall point still stands: The "SSPX Oath of Fidelity" (the actual name of the docuмent) got only introduced in 1979, as I said. Throughout the whole 70s, there was no real problem with sedevacantists or the pre-55 missal. And it's clear why Lefebvre did this, because he was in talks with the Vatican at the time. And even then, he allowed sedes to continue if they weren't public about it. I don't want to defend sedevacantism, I overall agree with Fr. Hesse / Bp. Viganò, but I think it's just unfair to the more "personal doubt" sedevacantists. But now this SAJM rector tries to dogmatize a decision made by Lefebvre in the late 70s as if Lefebvre never changed his position. It's just overreaching.
Again, I would mostly agree, but try to see the point made by Fr Brocard: this docuмent was introduced in 79 (I am not sure it was under the current form, i think a anti-sedevacantist emphasis was put with the split of Nines), so 9 years after the creation of the sspx, and remained in vigor until now... in the Abp's life, you then have 9 years without this Oath, then he adapted, and imposed this oath until he died 11/12 years later...
Usually, when a founder adapts, and stay with this adaptation longer than the previous state, and until his death, it's more logical to follow the said adaptation...
You may argue though, that it was a practical adaptation, due to a specific sedevacantist crisis, and that the practice of Abp L, even later was of a tolerance to discreet sedes... I agree... and I agree with the risk, (and the actual existence) of unfairness to "personal doubt" sedes... while I understand that a priestly society can have a specific policy in these matters (it existed in the previous centuries for theological opinions), it should not turn into a witchhunt or fighting against others not holding the exact same stance...
I didn't deny that Fr. Brocard was right on this point, but no Resistance bishop does it differently than Lefebvre? The priests obviously continue working with the same bishop that ordained them, would be very weird otherwise. Priests ordained by Bp. Williamson continued working with Bp. Williamson, that doesn't suddenly make them vagus or independent just because they're not in the same organizational "structure" (however you want to define "structure" in these days).
So then, what's Fr. Brocards point? He's attacking a strawman at best, and pushing against all "independent priests" at worst. Given that the later half about the docuмent is all about obedience, submission and hierarchy, I suspect the latter.
as far as we can see in the archbishop's life and many lectures, both to seminarians or laypeople, he would not ordain candidates outside of a structure, with rules, statutes, etc. which could be approved by the Church in normal times... he repeatedly stated that, and I don't remember him doing exceptions to this stance...
Now, it's not exactly what has been done by some of the bishops of the resistance (I don't say that as a blame or critic, but as a fact): a good example, i think, is Bp Ballini who has priests under him, but, as far as I am aware, no "organization" or statutes...
Honestly, it looks a little diferent from what the Abp said... although, I would think it's absoluty enough to avoid priests being independants: his priests are really under an authority, which is what the Church wants for the priests.
Trying to be as objective as possible, it looks like Bp Ballini (following Bp W) was a little "broader" than Abp L in this regard... Is that OK ? I am quite convinced it is, like you from the above quote; Fr Brocard prefers to stick to the Abp, i think he is entitled to that... But I agree with you, expressing it as he did, imposing his views in not so veiled criticism of others, including bishops, is disappointing...
Based on other explanations by the same fr Brocard, I really think he is not attacking all "independant priests"... his only public docuмent is not clear enough about it, and your interpretation is legitimate, based on this only public docuмent. Hopefully, hearing more from him would show more clearly what he thinks in this regard, which is, by God's grace, not as dark as it can grasped from 1 text... in this lecture, he was mostly targetting priests who, after being ordained by a bishop, leave this bishop's authority to be on their own, without doctrinal reason...
I hope. But I just see the direction: the SAJM "moves in on" Dom Tomas monastery, then "takes over" the seminary, and this is the first thing the new rector publishes? The danger is that they want to brainwash seminarians with this "62" as the new dogma and this will create further splits later on.
I don't want to throw the "entire SAJM" immediately overboard, many priests are still very nice. But it's clear they want to push yet another run of "extra SAJM nulla salus"-ism or yet another "only we are the True Resistance, the true Sons of AbL"-ism. We've had enough of that with Fr. Hewko already.
I could not agree more (I cannot upvote you, I am still to new a poster)... I really hope that the 62 brainwashing will not happen like it did in the sspx (but remember, most of them are french, and french people are not the most sound people on liturgical terms)... and that this attitude "we are the only ones right" will not develop any further...
Since you reference many SAJM priests, I guess you know some of them, let's tell to those we know about what we fear and encourage them to not fall in this trap...
Topic: SAJM leaves the resistance??? (Apostles of Jesus and Mary) (Read 4140 times)