Author Topic: "Just Like the SSPX Today!"  (Read 903 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4430
  • Reputation: +4003/-1317
  • Gender: Male
"Just Like the SSPX Today!"
« on: July 09, 2019, 10:59:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In 2001, the SSPX promoted this Open Letter of Dom Fleichman, OSB, which condemned the capitulation of Campos.

    Today, the SSPX stands condemned for adopting the very arguments/positions which Dom Fleichman condemned in the Letter.

    "Ah, but Mr. Johnson, things have changed in Rome since then!  They are open to Tradition now (modernists open to Tradition?)!"

    What kind of fools are you??

    PS: Dom Fleichman himself also stands condemned by his own arguments, as he himself supports the ralliement.

    https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Open_Letter_to_the_Priests_of_Campos.htm



    Niteroi, October 30, 2001

    Most Reverend Bishop Rangel and very dear Fathers:

    I am not the best placed person for writing you this letter. I do not think that I shall obtain from you the assent that you declined to the bishops of the Society (of Saint Pius X), Bishop Fellay and Bishop de Galarreta, when they tried to show you the fearful damage that these accords between you and the Vatican could inflict on the Church and on the fight for the "survival of Tradition." Nevertheless, I have a very serious reason for writing you about this, and I do so with the advice and approval of Bishop Fellay himself. The reason is that several of our faithful at Niteroi and Rio come from villages you are responsible for, and they have always held the "Campos Fathers" in the highest esteem and reverence. Now they cannot manage to understand the reason for an agreement (with Rome) made separately from the Society of Saint Pius X and which, moreover, goes against the counsel and advice of the Society bishops.

    Another reason that encourages me to write you is the experience I lived through in 1988 at Barroux, when Dom Gerard Calvet too wanted to make a deal with the Vatican.
    Here is the first similarity I see between Dom Gerard's attitude and yours: Archbishop Lefebvre had just refused an agreement because he had not been able to perceive in the Vatican's intentions the guarantees that would be necessary to assure the survival of Catholic Tradition. Dom Gerard, placing the particular interests of his monastery above the Church's good, accepted a separation from Archbishop Lefebvre in order to "normalize" his juridical and canonical status, thereby letting fall the sword of combat. [So is the SSPX!]

    Today, equally, the Society has just rejected an accord for the same reasons as Archbishop Lefebvre, and you prefer to consider your particular interests and not the common good of the Church. You have grown weary of the daily fight and of being marginalized. [So has the SSPX!]

    But the similarities do not stop there.

    When your Fraternity was conducting the current negotiations, I spoke to Fr. Fernando (Rifan) on the phone. He gave me three reasons that he considered sufficient for going ahead and concluding the agreement, even though the Vatican has not agreed to allow the Tridentine Mass: 1) many new persons would rejoin Tradition; 2) we would have a foot in the door of modernist Rome for preaching Tradition; 3) we could still go back to our former position in case we were unduly pressured. [Same arguments as the SSPX!]

    These are precisely the same arguments as those of Dom Gerard in 1988; to me, shockingly so. Firstly, because then you knew how to critique Dom Gerard's position, as was so necessary at the time. Second, because today the logical conclusion you are obliged to reach is that Dom Gerard was right! He preceded you by ten years, which obliges you to believe that his assessment then was better than yours. [And so must the SSPX!]

    I think that the following affirmations are undeniable: 1) The new people that will join you will not desire to convert to true Tradition. They will come to you because the legal obstacles have been removed, and not for reasons of faith. They will be very sympathetic, but they will not be seeking the whole truth with the doctrinal conviction that leads souls to martyrdom; [EXACTLY the case today; consider the response of the SSPXer married in the Canadian Churh by a conciliar priest!] 2) Being in modernist Rome‑and this is proven‑invariably results in contamination by the guiding principles of Vatican II, administered in homeopathic doses until the fruit falls, as the St. Peter's Fraternity fell; [We see fresh evidence of this in the SSPX almost daily!] 3) As for going back: who among them has ever returned to his former position? They would rather concelebrate with the Pope than go back. And if they did go back, what would become of the faithful in their parishes? Would they all go back? How many would be entangled over the question of legality? I consider such an attitude reckless; it does not take into account the constancy of the souls that Providence has entrusted to you. You regularize on paper a phony problem of excommunication, and the faithful have only to follow and obey, and then, tomorrow, to about face and retreat with you!

    I cannot quite see in this the respect for souls the priestly life requires. [Indeed!]

    With regard to the Society of Saint Pius X, I do not understand how you can so obstinately refuse the requests of these bishops who have come to your aid time and time again. First, there was the consecration of Bishop Licinio Rangel, a very courageous act by these bishops, for many could misconstrue this act, as was the case for some. It was by thinking of you and of your faithful that they agreed to the consecration. Also, the seminaries of the Society have always been open to the Campos seminarians; they are received as brothers. And then, when the Society was summoned to negotiate with the Vatican at the beginning of 2001, you were amiably invited to participate (in the meetings of the Society's superiors). They were not obliged to include you, yet, once again, they were generous and fraternal in the fight for Tradition.

    In view of these facts, by refusing to listen to the supplications of the Society, you incur the terrible burden of betrayal. [So does the SSPX today!] In that, once again, you match Dom Gerard. [And again!] Perhaps you do not see the matter thus, but neither can you deny the bishops the right to feel betrayed.

    And just as Dom Gerard's betrayal caused a terrible drama amongst the French faithful, [Just like the SSPX is doing today!] causing divisions in families and deep disappointment because of this abandonment and weakness, likewise you also, today, are for the Brazilian faithful the cause of the same disappointment and the same divisions. [Just like the SSPX today!]

    I said in 1988 to Dom Gerard what I repeat to you today: thousands of the faithful anxiously wait for you to confirm them in the Catholic faith, in the combat that divine Providence requires of us, without our succumbing to fatigue, weakness, or the siren song of legality. [Too late!] What our Lord requires is martyrdom endured drop by drop, and a clear and simple profession of Catholic faith without compromising with the modernists in the Vatican. [Umm, but then modernist Rome has no interest in "regularizing" their enemy!] The Pope, yes; legality, yes; but above all; respond to God's clear call to the combat of the faith. [!!!] The day the Pope really converts, it will appear more clearly than the light of day. Obviously, it is not by kissing the Koran or by going to pray in a mosque that he manifests this conversion.

    All the faithful of the chapels of Rio and Niteroi are praying for you, beseeching the Blessed Virgin Mary to turn your hearts to the light of truth.

    In Christo et Maria,
    Dom Lourenqo Fleichman, O. S. B.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline apollo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 418
    • Reputation: +188/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Just Like the SSPX Today!"
    « Reply #1 on: July 10, 2019, 03:36:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The SSPX has been taken over by traitors to tradition.  Fellay has ruined the SSPX. 
    Fellay has expelled many of those priests who oppose an agreement with Rome.
    He has moved the others (not expelled) to remote locations.  He has put the younger
    modern priests in charge of seminaries and parishes. 
    .
    Fellay has deceived the dummies who have no idea what is going on with the Rosary
    crusade, and the idea that SSPX can convert Rome from within.  Also he quit talking
    about the Counciliar Church and calls it the Official Church or Visible Church. 
    .
    He has squashed all criticism of Vatican II and Rome, except for a few things (to make
    it look like he is still traditional). 
    .
    From what I have seen over the last 25 years, the SSPX will never recover.  It is gone.
    It is now the Latin Mass department of the heretical new religion in Rome.



    Offline apollo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 418
    • Reputation: +188/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Just Like the SSPX Today!"
    « Reply #2 on: July 10, 2019, 04:21:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He gave me three reasons that he considered sufficient for going ahead and concluding the agreement, ...
     
    1) many new persons would rejoin Tradition;
    2) we would have a foot in the door of modernist Rome for preaching Tradition;
    3) we could still go back to our former position in case we were unduly pressured.
    .
    1) Many new persons would rejoin (or join) Tradition ...
    .
    For the wrong reasons, such as a beautiful new church, ordinary jurisdiction,
    no criticism of Rome, easy to get annulments, etc.

    .
    Many new persons might leave Tradition, thinking the only difference is the
    Latin instead of English.


    2) We would have a foot in the door for preaching Tradition ...
    .
    And all criticisms of Vatican II would be ignored.
    .
    3) We could still go back to our former position in case we were pressured ...
    .
    And lose jurisdiction ?  I don't think so.  
    Lose money ?  I don't think so.
    Be considered schismatic ?  I don't think so.  

    And look like you made a big mistake ?  

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 613
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Just Like the SSPX Today!"
    « Reply #3 on: July 10, 2019, 06:48:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If, per the Letter above, the SSPX is, as Dom Fleichman observes, obliged to conclude that Dom Gerard (and other betrayers like Fr. Aulagnier, et al) was right, then the inverse conclusion also follows:

    The SSPX is obliged to admit it was wrong.

    From whence it also follows that it must admit that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong.

    And that fear/belief/admission is what is at the root of their ralliement.

    Because of that, the SSPX is itself becoming a danger to the faith, by spreading this infection and rejection of ABL to all those over whom it has influence.

    Will we soon be obliged to shun the SSPX in order to hold fast to Tradition?

    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 371
    • Reputation: +247/-90
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Just Like the SSPX Today!"
    « Reply #4 on: July 10, 2019, 11:00:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • BAlso of interest is Fr Violette’s letter to the faith on the expulsion of Fr Aulagnier:

    Dear Faithful,
    Unfortunately I have sad news to end the year. Some of you may have seen it on the Internet. Indeed Father Aulagnier, one of Archbishop Lefebvre’s first and closest companion in the resistance, assistant to the Superior General, founding district superior of the French district had to be expelled from the Society. Last September we were saddened by the interview of Father Aulagnier to the Wanderer. At first I thought of replying earlier but then decided to wait to see how this affair would end. This interview, along with an extended article published in French on his website as well as in a French daily newspaper proved to be the last straw.
    For a long time now, since 1998, he had publicly and virulently opposed the Society’s stand regarding negotiations with Rome. As well he disobeyed our constitutions and repeatedly disobeyed Bishop Fellay’s explicit orders thus giving a bad example. He had also created a very difficult situation within the Society trying to sway its members in pursuing an accord with Rome thus trying to cause division and even rebellion against the legitimate authority. The problem was not that he had contrary opinions but that he was airing them in public and trying to undermine the Superior General and the Society. This state of affairs had lasted long enough. Because it was Father Aulagnier and the respect he commanded in the Society, Bishop Fellay and the General Council were very patient but sometimes, even patience can be a fault.
    After reading Father Aulagnier’s interview a few questions come to mind: why grant an interview to a newspaper, which is clearly against the SSPX? Are birds of a feather starting to flock together? Secondly Father Aulagnier seems to imply that those who disagree with his opinion and agree with the Superior General and the majority of SSPX members regarding the so-called reconciliation are “yes men”. This is not only insulting it is ludicrous. On the contrary as we will see, the SSPX’s present stand would seem more faithful to the Archbishop.
    Now I have not read Father Aulagnier’s French articles I’ve only read the interview in the Wanderer. According to this article, I think we can summarize Father Aulagnier’s arguments in favor of a “reconciliation” in the following: 1. The danger of schism. 2. His friendship with the “heroic” priests of Campos. 3. “The attitude of Rome is new.” 4. “Additionally I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages.” Let us consider these points.
    1. The danger of schism.
    Our resistance is not rebellion. It is the necessary attitude of Catholics who want to keep the faith when faced with prelates who attack, deny or threaten it. We do not want to become Protestants! We continue to believe in the divinity of Our Lord and His social Kingship, His Church. The fact that we keep the faith and we continue to speak with the Roman authorities shows there is no danger of schism because we still recognize their authority. Dispensations and other ecclesiastical permissions have been sought and received from the Roman authorities. What is in question is not their authority but whether we can trust them or not. It is not just a matter of having a majority in a Roman commission. It is a matter of can we put ourselves under them and trust them to protect our Faith? Unfortunately the present Roman authorities have proven over and over they cannot be trusted, that they have not changed as we will point out later on.
    The solution to this crisis will come from Rome when the Roman authorities come back to the integrity of the Faith. But until then we do well to continue our resistance. How long this will
    take is not our problem but God’s. But we cannot for the sake of a fake unity join those who promote errors, who reduce the Church to a human institution, or simply one religion among others thus destroying it. So we continue Tradition and continue to denounce those who reject it in the name of a new conciliar church. As Archbishop Lefebvre said: by cutting themselves off from the previous popes, the modern Roman authorities are the ones who are schismatic. When Rome returns to the Faith the only matter for discussion will be who will become a bishop and who will he replace?
    2. His friendship with the “heroic” priests of Campos.
    Friendship is indeed a noble sentiment. But does it come before one’s duty or before one’s Faith. Further, I simply ask the question: Does it take heroic virtue to capitulate in the fight for Tradition in order to obtain recognition? Did it take heroic virtue to renounce their spiritual father, Bishop de Castro Mayer, to abandon and turn against their former comrades in arms? I don’t think so. Is Father Aulagnier also on the verge of choosing between the pre-Vatican II and the post-Vatican II Archbishop Lefebvre? As if there was a difference.
    3. The attitude of Rome is new
    This is the most unbelievable reason of all. Where has Father Aulagnier been for the past 5 years? Have the modern Roman authorities really changed? Has he forgotten what they have done to the Fraternity of St Peter, which is their own creation? Has he forgotten about the two sacrilegious prayer meetings of Assisi? The last one took place a week after they granted recognition to the “heroic” priests of Campos who did not say a word about it. By the way, hasn’t he noticed how quiet the “heroic” priests of Campos are since they signed their agreement? Doesn’t he know that on May 24 2003, at the same time as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos was offering the traditional Mass in St Mary Major, the Pope was giving the Catholic church of Saints Vincent and Anastasius, which contains the embalmed hearts of 22 popes, to the Bulgarian Orthodox to share? Some change!
    He seems to have forgotten what Archbishop Lefebvre knew well and denounced: there are two Romes: Catholic Rome and the neo-modernist Rome. As did Archbishop Lefebvre, we adhere with our whole heart to Catholic Rome but reject the neo-modernist Rome. Catholic Rome has been infiltrated and is occupied by Modernists. This is a fact. The proclamation by Cardinal Castrillon that “The old Roman rite thus conserves in the Church its right of citizenship” is nice but changes nothing. It is perfectly in line with the neo-modernist ecumenism of the neo-modernist Romans, which is: Why not accept also the Mass of St Pius V? We accept everything else.
    But we are not looking for acceptance. We will not be happy if at the next Assisi prayer meeting Bishop Fellay stands closer to the Pope than the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama shouldn’t even be there. We hope that at the next prayer meeting at Assisi to pray for peace the Pope will be surrounded by all the Catholic bishops consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is where the true peace is. Encouraging prayers to false gods will not bring peace.
    So the words of Archbishop Lefebvre to John Paul II in 1988 are still valid today: “The time for cooperation has not yet come.” Absolutely nothing has changed. The present Roman authorities continue to be faithful to their principles of the new theology, new ecclesiology new evangelization exemplified by the spirit of Vatican II and Assisi in which they want to draw us and of which we want no part.
    The SSPX also continues faithful to the Catholic principles transmitted by the Archbishop. “We do not view reconciliation in the same way. Cardinal Ratzinger see it in the sense of bringing us to Vatican II. We see it as the return of Rome to Tradition. We cannot come together. It is a dialogue between the deaf.” For the renewal of the dialogue with Rome “I will raise the question on the doctrinal level: ‘Are you in agreement with the great encyclicals of all the previous popes? Are you in agreement with Quanta cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei, Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas primas of Pius XI, Humani generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these popes and their teaching? Do you still accept the anti-modernist oath? Are you in favor of the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors it is useless to talk. As long as you refuse to reform the council in light of the doctrine of these popes who preceded you there is no dialogue possible. It is useless… The opposition between us is not a small thing. It is not sufficient for then to tell us: you can say the old Mass… No the opposition between is not there, it is the doctrine.” 1
    4. “I think that there is a danger in seeing this conflict last for ages”.
    In my opinion, I think we might see here the real reason for Father Aulagnier’s change. The fight is dragging on. He has been at the center of this fight for over 30 years. Maybe he is tired of the fight! But this is not the first time that a conflict over the faith has lasted for ages. The Arian crisis lasted over 70 years, the papal exile in Avignon 68 years, the great Schism 39 years. Is this a reason to abandon the fight to come to some arrangement? It’s a good thing St Athanasius didn’t get tired of being exiled, threatened, falsely accused, excommunicated etc. He wouldn’t be St Athanasius.
    He seems to have forgotten that: “In other times heretics and schismatics left the Church. Today, as St Pius X warned us, they remain to make her evolve from within and to seduce, if it were possible all or part of the flock of the holy bishop… But one does not deal with this kind of enemy all the more so that he is cunning. One does not negotiate with him a false and separate peace. One fights him till the end, strong in his right – Deus vult - God wills it – reminding him of the truths he attacks in vain… Rome knows it made an error, a grave error: the excommunication (against Mgr Lefebvre). How to repair the error? Time will tell. In any case not without a frank return of the hierarchy to the total and integral confession of the catholic faith whole and entire. The day will come when Rome by its conversion will find our serenity.2Seems like has lost his serenity.
    Dear faithful do not lose your serenity, stand calm firm in the unchanging faith of all times. Do not abandon the fight. Sure it is dragging out. But we will win.
    As usual we thank you for your continued support and assure you of our daily prayers for you and yours especially during the holy season of Advent and Christmastide. May you all have a happy and blessed Christmas and may the newborn Lord and His holy Mother and St Joseph reward and bless you in the coming year.
    With my blessing
    Father Jean Violette

    These today are the words of the Society. Fr Nely said “we will become schismastics if this continues” Bishop Fellay says “Rome is different and likes us now!” Fr Pfluger says “we can cohabitate with Rome!” Fr Pagliarani says “we will see what Providence has is store for the Society!”

    Will Fr Aulagnier be welcomed back to the Society now with an apology? According to them ... he was right all along and he got the boot for it!


    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3484
    • Reputation: +1282/-97
    • Gender: Female
    Re: "Just Like the SSPX Today!"
    « Reply #5 on: July 10, 2019, 06:07:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sad but true, the Jews, infiltrating, continue to destroy!

    Offline Mr G

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 627
    • Reputation: +425/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: "Just Like the SSPX Today!"
    « Reply #6 on: July 11, 2019, 12:27:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.fsspx.com/Documents/Fr-Violettes-Letters/2002_December.htm

          "There is really nothing to negotiate.  The Faith is not negotiable.  What is more we do not negotiate with our superiors.  If we resist our prelate, as St Thomas Aquinas says we have the right and obligation of doing, it is only because our faith is endangered, and we see the ruins mounting all around us, and not because we are rebellious children.  “We continue to pray that modern Rome, infected by modernism become again Catholic Rome and return to its 2000 year old Tradition.  Then the problem or reconciliation will be solved… [2] But as long as they want to lead us down the path of the new religion we have to continue turning a deaf ear and even resist their efforts"

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16