Author Topic: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth  (Read 1324 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 612
  • Reputation: +607/-52
  • Gender: Male
SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
« on: April 26, 2019, 07:15:46 AM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is the response by Fr Brucciani to the two SSPX Oblate Sisters leaving the SSPX. First things first; at least Fr Brucciani writes like a gentleman.  Of course this should go without saying. However unfortunately in the past it has not always been the case when speaking of Religious leaving for the Resistance rather than, for example, the local Diocese.

    As one would expect he also makes valid points, for example his use of ECCL. 4. Who could deny its truth? However, after reading it and mulling it over I wish to ask the following question. If this letter had been written in 1988 by Fr Bisig would he not have made the very same points? Why does obedience stop at the Superiors of the SSPX? Because of their past adherence to the fight for Tradition? One could make the same argument for supporting priests who left the SSPX for the FSSP or indeed the various Sedevacantist grouplets. Once they leave the fight for which people were supporting them in the first place, then laity do not 'owe' them obedience simply because they tell them to. Obedience is truly the one thing that the SSPX can not lecture on, for the existence of the SSPX is built on disobedience to legitimate authority gone wrong. Therefore the argument only works if one believes that the SSPX continues to believe what it has always believed, an argument which sounds pretty hollow these days.

    I firmly believe that at the back of this style of thinking is an erroneous view of what the role of the SSPX is, and to tell the truth, it also exists within what is known as 'The Resistance'. It appears that both Religious and layman alike are under the impression that the role of the SSPX is somehow to 'save' the Church. What incredible arrogance, what pride! God could stop everything in one second. The role of both the SSPX and the Resistance should be to save souls. The way to save souls in these times of diabolical disorientation is to witness to the truth and let the cards fall where they may. This 'politicizing' of the SSPX has been a disaster. This is how we end up with them criticizing posters against Pope Francis in Rome or trooping to the local ecumenical chapel for a photo shoot to upload on a priests retreat. Twenty years ago The Angelus magazine would have had an entire issue dedicated to exposing 'spin' instead we now have the 'non-polemical' wet pious platitudes worthy of of the worst Latin Mass Society efforts.

    I think that the reason why SSPX laity have been so drawn to the letter by Sister Mary Elizabeth is that she wrote like the SSPX used to, like Bishop Williamson still does, and how the SSPX no longer do.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #1 on: April 26, 2019, 07:27:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Whoa, not sure what happened.

    Here is the original link/attribution I was about to add at top:

    http://tradcatresist.blogspot.com/2019/04/response-to-sister-mary-elizabeth.html?m=1

    Maybe someone else will know how to copy/paste this to CI?


    Offline Viva Cristo Rey

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7684
    • Reputation: +2159/-273
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #2 on: April 26, 2019, 08:07:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is my response.  Catholics are being slaughtered for many years with zero media coverage.  Most in novus ordo are poorly formed Catholics (like myself was).  Or they reject Catholic teachings.  The conciliar Church doesn’t evangelize much.  Wake up.  The world is being invaded by those who hate Jesus and they have waged war worldwide.  Sister Mary Elizabeth was correct.  The bishop has been inside a mosque during interfaith meeting and shouldn’t be allowed to step inside any Catholic School because he could have been exposed to demons.  Rome does not spread the gospel of Jesus.  It is different gospel of liberalism.   POPE FRANCIS:  “I come as a pilgrim of peace and fraternity, in a world that greatly needs it,” he said in a video message to the “dear people of Morocco” on the eve of his visit. He offered the traditional Muslim greeting, salaam alaikum, and thanked God “for granting me this opportunity” and King Mohammed VI of Morocco “for his kind invitation.”
    Then, in words that echoed the groundbreaking document that he signed last month in Abu Dhabi with Ahmad el-Tayeb, the grand imam of Egypt’s al-Azhar mosque and university, the pope told them:
    Quote
    As Christians and Muslims, we believe in God the Creator and Merciful One, who has created men and women and placed them on the earth so that they might live together as brothers and sisters, respecting each other’s diversity and helping each other in their need. He has entrusted the earth—our common home—to them, to care for it responsibly and to preserve it for future generations. It will be a joy for me to share these firm convictions with you directly at our meeting in Rabat.” 

    Viva Cristo Rey of  Cathinfo:  “There is only one God. And that is Jesus Christ now and forever. “
    To live with the Saints in Heaven is all bliss and glory....To live with the saints on Earth is just another story!  (unknown)

    Offline homeschoolmom

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 148
    • Reputation: +101/-14
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #3 on: April 26, 2019, 08:31:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Wow, poor prudence is sure getting a beating out of the mouths of some of these priests lately. Smart, to turn things away from obedience where they know they can't win. Let's befuddle the people now with a false sense of prudence.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #4 on: April 26, 2019, 08:51:08 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • As TCR points out, it is the height of hypocrisy to use the prudence argument, while for 40 years the SSPX refused to “prudently” follow Rome.


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #5 on: April 26, 2019, 09:20:22 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • As TCR points out, it is the height of hypocrisy to use the prudence argument, while for 40 years the SSPX refused to “prudently” follow Rome.

    ...and of course, the implicit argument being made is that Archbishop Lefebvre’s position was not prudent.  

    They will say that times have changed, but they have only changed for the worse.

    The promises and concessions Rome is making have become bigger, and blinded Menzingen to the true character and quality of those making the promises.

    If a bankrupt wants to borrow money from me, should I agree to lend it because he makes grandiose promises of his intent to repay?  Promises made despite his insolvency?

    Note also Fr. Brucciani’s reference to being able to reach greater numbers of souls, given Menzingen’s “prudent” course of action.  Same argument of Dom Gérard, condemned by Campos, but later adopted by Campos and condemned by the SSPX, and now adopted by the SSPX.

    Yes, adding a little water to the doctrine is sure to attract more people, but these people will not be doctrinal traditionalists (as the clergy and faithful associated with Dom Gérard, Campos, et al clearly show).  They come not for reasons of doctrine, but because the (apparent) legal obstacles have been removed, and because the stamp of approval has been given.

    But the consequences for the purity of the faith, and the fight to restore traditional doctrine and discipline are disastrous:  

    The more water that is thrown into the soup to attract more people, the less it nourishes, so that those eating it still end up starving to death.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23140
    • Reputation: +20288/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #6 on: April 26, 2019, 09:29:02 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • They are so naive.

    They just don't understand the concept that *there are only so many serious Catholics of good will, fighting to truly live their Faith and stand up against the modern world*
    Those Catholics are already in Tradition.

    Now if you want to turn the whole Conciliar Church into a big Indult saying the Tridentine Mass exclusively, then go for it! That would be an improvement.

    But changing the SSPX into the Indult would be a step down. And the increase in numbers would come at the cost of quality -- and actually those numbers would *bring down the quality* of the existing members, because of human nature.

    Anyone who is so concerned about Roman approval that they won't join a group like the SSPX without it is so ignorant and/or brainwashed that they are probably not a good "Trad Catholic" to begin with.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male


    Offline homeschoolmom

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 148
    • Reputation: +101/-14
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #8 on: April 26, 2019, 09:45:06 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Note also Fr. Brucciani’s reference to being able to reach greater numbers of souls, given Menzingen’s “prudent” course of action.  

    That is such a Novus Ordo argument. And they think they've come from their dialogues unscathed.

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #9 on: April 26, 2019, 09:55:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Guess they forgot about this:

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

    Fr. Lourenco Fleichman, O.S.B.

    Nearly three months ago, Fr. Fleichman posted this letter on the Internet to manifest his disapproval of the agreement then being planned between the Vatican and the priests of the diocese of Campos, Brazil. The Accord was subsequently approved by the Priestly Union of St. John Baptist Mary Vianney with the approbation of Pope John Paul II, and sealed in a ceremony of reconciliation in the Cathedral of Campos, officiated by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in the presence of Bishop Rangel and his priests, Bishop Guimaraes, the diocesan bishop, his Novus Ordo priests, the Apostolic Nuncio, and Novus Ordo bishops from surrounding dioceses, on January 18, 2002.

    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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; 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; 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.
    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. In that, once again, you match Dom Gerard. 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, 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.
    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. 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. 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.

    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2674
    • Reputation: +477/-116
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #10 on: April 26, 2019, 11:51:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • X, where might I find Sister Mary Elizabeth's letter?


    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male

    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2674
    • Reputation: +477/-116
    • Gender: Female

    Offline X

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 612
    • Reputation: +607/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #13 on: April 26, 2019, 02:11:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Lourenco Fleichman, O.S.B.

    Nearly three months ago, Fr. Fleichman posted this letter on the Internet to manifest his disapproval of the agreement then being planned between the Vatican and the priests of the diocese of Campos, Brazil. The Accord was subsequently approved by the Priestly Union of St. John Baptist Mary Vianney with the approbation of Pope John Paul II, and sealed in a ceremony of reconciliation in the Cathedral of Campos, officiated by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos in the presence of Bishop Rangel and his priests, Bishop Guimaraes, the diocesan bishop, his Novus Ordo priests, the Apostolic Nuncio, and Novus Ordo bishops from surrounding dioceses, on January 18, 2002.

    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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; 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; 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.
    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. In that, once again, you match Dom Gerard. 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, 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.
    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. 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. 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.

    If I wanted to continue building the CCCC thread above 101 examples of contradiction, change, and compromise, rather than keep it at that symbolic number (i.e., suggesting that there are many more than 100 examples which could have been cited), the SSPX's former endorsement of Fr. Fleichman's letter, vs the opinion expressed by Fr. Brucciani and the SSPX today, would surely have made the list.

    Online ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 764
    • Reputation: +146/-55
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Response to Sister Mary Elizabeth
    « Reply #14 on: April 26, 2019, 07:57:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They are so naive.

    They just don't understand the concept that *there are only so many serious Catholics of good will, fighting to truly live their Faith and stand up against the modern world*.
    Those Catholics are already in Tradition.

    Now if you want to turn the whole Conciliar Church into a big Indult saying the Tridentine Mass exclusively, then go for it! That would be an improvement.

    But changing the SSPX into the Indult would be a step down. And the increase in numbers would come at the cost of quality -- and actually those numbers would *bring down the quality* of the existing members, because of human nature.

    Anyone who is so concerned about Roman approval that they won't join a group like the SSPX without it is so ignorant and/or brainwashed that they are probably not a good "Trad Catholic" to begin with.
    You acknowledged in another place that the FSSP, while you consider it a very compromised group at the group level, that the individuals within it are certainly conservative Catholics who have the Catholic faith. 

    How would you reconcile what you write here with this?  

    Like it seems like in some places you think that every serious Catholic of good will who wants to fight the modern world is already "In Tradition" which you define in such a way as to exclude the Indult groups. 

    But in other places it seems like you think the "tent" so to speak is broader than that.

    I'm sure there's an internal logic here and I'm just missing it.  But I am missing it.

     

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