I hope you shall enjoy this, with all my Indian compliments. Fc+
letter to Fr Laisney from Fr Chazal
L’ILLUSION LIBERALE :scratchchin:
MAASIN 27-03-2013
Dear Fr Laisney.
As you helped our cause in the past, I was surprised to see that your latest attempt against our little (1 Bishop, 50 priests (including 6 more just in the month of march ), 3 monasteries and one Carmel in Germany) resistance to the sspx Vatican II was recommended from the pulpit of Fr. Couture himself. It is a sign that liberalism is spreading with the blessing of authorities.
I am very grateful that you kept your sophistications to three pages, that are a good summary of the fallacies thrown at us.
SOPHISM # 1: IT IS GOOD TO BE REGULARIZED NOW.
So you start by saying that we have failed to prove Bishop Fellay wrong ….. Fine! But prove it!
Most of what we do is to quote him. If you say that the April 15th is a calumny, you’ll be the first to believe it is a fiction. The double-speech of Menzingen is an ongoing and well docuмented process; based on the idea that the Vatican II and the new mass are fixable and therefore, we cannot demand the novus ordo to condemn them .>>> Feb 15th interview at “Nouvelles de France”.
Regularization is like a toothpick, indifferent, which means, I can spoke the eye of my little sister with it. A priest doesn’t need to be regularized by with Robespierre but with the good Pope Pius VI. But no, you say we must be in order, because the law is order. Order !!...sayest the speaker in the House of the Parliament in Great Britain. Unfortunately, the Novus Ordo is an order by name only, and the Archbishop told us “to submit to evil out of obedience is a sin … in the Day of Judgment Our Lord will not ask us if we obeyed our (devious) superiors”. (August 09th 1986).
Why do you fail to inform the faithful about the rest of the definition of the law? That is not fair. A law is an ordinance of reason for the common good by the one who has care of the community.
Is it reasonable to be in order with the demolishers of the Church? What happened to the common good of Campos, the IBP, ICK, FSP?
In the case of danger for the Faith, Canon Law provides regularity to those who simply want not to swim with the sharks. Hence….. another sophism on the horizon is necessary.
SOPHISM # 2: THE NEW POPES ARE BAD OR LIBERALS, NOT HERETICS.
To be in communion with the sharks, one must prove that they are charitable sharks, taking us, their prey, as we are, while we make a clear distinction between what is good legitimate in them, and what is a bit cruel in them.
Here again you should have told us, ignorant readers, what is Donatism (a rigorist heresy: that people in sin must be altogether avoided and cannot perform any valid sacraments)
But no, liberals, novus ordo and non-catholics are welcome to talk to us and to attend our Masses, while we condemn the errors of their ways. This is what we do; I think its Catholic. Ours being a club of sinners , trying to intricate themselves by the grace of God, and welcoming sinners, including liberals, I don’t see how you make us Donatists except because you cannot stomach our refusal to call a heretic spade a heretic spade. All sinners are not heretics, but heretics are a very particular and dangerous kind of sinner and heretics do need to be avoided (do I need to prove that?).
For you, the best solution to avoid seeing heretics is to avoid seeing heresies, by preventing for instance the publication (in English) of Bishop Tissier’s book, a best seller in France, that proves Benedict XVI to be a heretic. Our channels of information have stopped to make a full investigation of today’s Rome. I should have thought about it before: if a better Rome is what we want, all we need to say is that these are no super heresies and focus on the “traditional” actions of Benedict XVI while carefully avoiding to mention that he blessed an Islamic center in Rome, appointed a Mason in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, prayed vespers with Protestants at St. Paul outside of the walls, prepared to beatify Paul VI, etc. …. More of these things are not to be found on DICI & SSPX.ORG, but they must be painfully gathered from elsewhere.
So how can you say that you are resisting liberalism when you refuse to expose heresies (something much graver)? How can the General Chapter claim to keep the liberty to rebuke errors when, even before a regularization, all we have is a deafening silence about the scandals of today’s Papacy.
SOPHISM # 3 : THE NEW POPES ARE NOT THAT LIBERAL.
“Sisinono” used to call Cardinal Ratzinger “a Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith without the Faith”. All those who have pored over his writings conclude the same. He is not of the same degree as a Dupanloup and Montalembert. But thankfully, we have now Pope Francis Ist. Desperating about DICI & SSPX.ORG, I watched his inaugural mass on Youtube…. there it was, the new religion: women doing readings, communion for pro abortion Joe Biden & Nancy Peℓσѕι, world religions closest to the altar, on the Gospel side, ring of Paul VI, prayer at the tomb of St. Peter with the schismatic Patriarch, novusordo vestments, liturgical abuses of all kinds, leftist sermon, allegiance standing etc.
I am not talking of the other aspects of this Jesuit Pope, they are plenty and far exceeding the little report of Fr. Bouchacourt.
While you can count on many people in the pews not to check for the facts, I still think that Pope Francis is going to make it really hard for you to prove that Rome has changed, except for the worse. If you persevere in this liberal blindness, (a lower of degree than other degrees of liberalism,) expect the SSPX crisis to continue. Do you really want more priests to join us?
If I were Bishop Fellay, I would humbly say that “I misrepresented the situation and the spread of heresy in Rome “ or “Rome is getting worse and worse, we denounce it and exclude all deal with it for the time being.” But there is no sign of that. God is helping you to see with this new Pope, who is much less dangerous to us because he is less ambiguous. The label corresponds to what is in the bottle; while with Benedict XVI, we even had the red shoes.
SOPHISM # 4 : WE MUST REJOIN THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
Your next paragraph is a bit convoluted, and the arguments of Anglicanism is far fetched, I admit. But it remains that your reasoning, which is a repeat of Bishop Fellay’s April 14th infamous letter, is that flawed reasoning used by Dom Gerard to abandon Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. As you quote later so brilliantly, a new Church has “clearly manifested itself” after Vatican II. What we have is a complete entanglement of Truth and error, still good people having the Faith and rotten members. In case of such entanglement, as for the wheat and the chaff, what do we do? Do we go on the field? No! God knows how and will disentangle everything in the time of his choosing.
In the meantime, we keep whatever attachment to the visible Catholic Church as possible, like praying and recognizing Pope(s) and Bishops, showing courtesy to the local novus ordo priests, getting sometime the permission to use beautiful churches and refraining to say that all novus ordo people are bad.
But for you liberals, like insane Galatians of old, it is salvation by mush, as Bishop Williamson says. You want to come canonically in into this visibly undisentanglable marshmallowish mush. Nothing has been learned from the past experiences and the worsening of the situation in Rome (Pope Francis, Muller, Kasper, Bertone, etc…) is not changing your reasoning. Good luck to you !! You shall be placed in this Parliament of religions before being trampled underfoot, like the Redemptorist of Papa Stronsay.
There is something more to life than to get our papers in order, and we lament on the confusion of the visible Church quite bitterly: because mankind its visible means of salvation, because the visible Church has lost its missionary identity at Vatican II, countless souls are going to hell, like snowflakes.
No Father, we love the visible Church more than you think. It is visible to teach the Faith to all nations as Our Lord said.
It is very sad to see that you follow the false assumptions of Archbishop di Noia.
SOPHISM # 5: BISHOP FELLAY FIGHTS VATICAN II
How can you reconcile what you say next with the June 1976 declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre: “Inasmuch as one unites himself to this Conciliar Church, he separates himself from the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ”. In the very months where you say he was faithful, Bishop Fellay wrote carefully his doctrinal preamble which could be the doctrinal manifesto of any other Ecclesia Dei contraptions. Amazingly, the Pope couldn’t accept it, for political reasons that we don’t yet know; or because he was not confident to catch the Society as a whole.
Had he accepted the offer, we would now recognize Vatican II, the validity and legitimacy of the new Mass, the validity of all novus ordo sacraments; even dubious ones like Confirmation and Holy Orders. We would endorse the profession of Faith of 1989 that entails submission to Vatican II and would be following today’s magisterium, as per the terms of Lumen Gentium 25. We would say that religious liberty is reconciliable with Tradition (albeit with difficulty). We would make ours the New Code of Canon Law, without even a mention of the Old Code that the Archbishop told us to follow……
The whole sell out is there, but much to this grief, as his brother said, the Pope couldn’t buy us.
But then the General Chapter put a big “FOR SALE” sign at the General Chapter….on July 14th !
Look up the past worrying statements, the various interviews, especially on CNS, the letter of April 14th, the six conditions, the talks of both assistants, and the case is made: Bishop Fellay fights Vatican II with ¼ of his heart, maybe.
SOPHISM # 6: ROME IS MOVING TOWARDS TRADITION.
The triumphant election and installation of Francis 1st confirms perfectly that this ”real effort” to return to Tradition, on the part of Rome, was just a phase of Revolution. One often needs to step backwards to jump better. Are you going to learn the lessons of Pope Francis and be more careful? Looking at the muteness of the official SSPX channels, I fear not. But I promise that it will buy us some time for the good and antiliberal priests still in the official SSPX (and there are many) to open their eyes, if you intend to make your reconciliationnal recognition with a Triumphantly modernist new Rome. We need more time to make the ship ready and I think Francis I will hold off Bishop Fellay, hopefully.
SOPHISM # 7: IT IS BETTER TO HEAL THAN TO PREVENT THE DISEASE.
You want us to wait until the New Mass arrives in our chapel, Vatican II and its paraphernalia. You want us to be fooled again and swim into another boat only once the ship is at the bottom of the ocean.
But, Father, we were fooled once, and in a mighty way, at the Council. We have studied the process, and we have seen the same process with those who abandoned the fight of the Archbishop in the past. Do you really want us to be fooled again? All we need to see before taking any action is the official endorsement of Vatican II, wrapped, it is true, in double speech and apparent backpedalling.
But if I may say it is precisely this double speech that make us more determined to take action, lest the simple ones be utterly misled in the end.
Our task is not easy, and inept to your eyes, but we have to make sure that there is going to be a fair sized remnant once the reconciliation that you long for so much, actually takes place.
Your resolve into going back to the Novus Ordo Official Church feeds in turn our own resolve.
SOPHISM # 8: PRAY, PAY & OBEY.
Your last paragraph is directly aimed at Bishop Williamson, the present leader of the resistance.
I don’t know if you realize, Father, but obedience is your main weapon, exactly like the novus ordo towards the SSPX; and the 50 of us are painfully aware that it is the main answer we receive to these questions of doctrine.
Therefore, one can understand the perplexity of Bishop Williamson in creating a tight network of obedience, because this is the second time in a lifetime that obedience is used to disobey God.
It remains that some of us want to establish a Corps, an army, like the Jesuits of old, but His Lordship is not in favor of it – or will not join the Corps personally, neither will he direct a seminary. Our faithful, on the contrary, yearn for the security of an organized body of Priests, they want soldiers down the pipe and a whole worldwide grid, so what do we do? Guess what? We obey Bishop Williamson, confident that the necessity of a “Marian Corps” will gradually emerge from the bonds of Charity that exists among us and the necessity of sacraments and priestly assistance for catholic families. Regional leaders are already emerging, like Fr Pfeiffer in North America, Dom Thomas Aquinas is South America, and Fr Nicolas Pinaud in France. Fr Ringrose is a great leader of his kind, Fr Ortiz works under him very happily. I am sending the doubles of my canonical files to Our Lady of Mount Carmel already.
Note well that it has been prophesized that “They are going to frizzle”, “They are not going to stick together”. The facts belie all this, we are all in touch and mutually supportive, doctrinally, financially and spiritually. Therefore, no, it is not chaos amongst us, just a nascent organization.
Our contenders would like us to make a hasty decision as to how we are going to operate exactly, but for the time being, really, we are just thrown away SSPX priests, recovering from the shock, of strict survivance. The oaths and promises we have taken, we fulfill then now in great sorrows thanks to the homeless programs begun last year. We have nothing in the bank.
It is also difficult for the faithful to get their bearings after this new breach of trust on the part of the authorities. (Authority should also try, a bit sometimes, to earn some trust from its subjects). Some of those faithful are ostracized, others can’t take any more the local liberalism that has trickled down to their local clergy… they have now to make do with rare visits of overextended missionaries. But we have the lucky ones in Vienna Virginia, Los Angeles (Fr Perez), Florida, Brazil, etc.
So don’t worry Father, if we have not yet come with a clear frame, it is out of compliance and in order to think about a better structure. Just think about it: two 12 years’ terms….That is a quarter of a century!
To finish on something funny, let’s talk about the bitter zeal. Several questions: Who left the meal in bitterness before the end because he could not contain his anger and repeated the experience elsewhere? Who denies us absolution? Who tells little villagers that we are schismatics? Who wants us to eat in the library and say the Mass in our bedrooms? Who refuses to talk, even to iron out our lines of argumentation in private? Who told us that it is illegal for us to step in SSPX chapels and properties? Who excommunicates faithful in the US and Italy? Who told Fr. Cyprian to throw Fr. Raphael out?....
No Father, because you act delusionally, I will not deny you my absolution, nor refrain to offer you the kind of beer that I like(the bitter, Guinness type, I confess), come any time to my table, or hang out with me in front of an ice cream. I don’t think you are going to hell all that much, and if you don’t scrounge on me I can drain some of your whiskeys at the Singapore Priory, for the official SSPX has still some good bottles!
Yours most bottly, battly and unbitterly.
In Iesu et Maria,
François Chazal+
:boxer: :alcohol: :applause:
http://sspxkorea.org/board/board_view.html?board_data_id=429780&config_id=5147
Topic: SSPX Asia (Read 8227 times)