Author Topic: SSPX: The founder is keeping watch  (Read 2025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anthony M

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Reputation: +0/-0
SSPX: The founder is keeping watch
« on: May 14, 2012, 02:22:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The following article provides some insight to the current situation (for those interested):

    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch

    A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

    Taken from: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

    "The four Lefebvrist bishops split," Le Figaro says in its headline. And, it must be said, the division has never seemed so apparent since they were consecrated by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, on June 30, 1988. Only apparently, because, at times, the internal differences have been pronounced, but they have not always been known to all. Likewise, whoever made the decision to bring to the public square the correspondence, took a decision that was extremely grave in its consequences, insofar as the act risked to disturb what a Cardinal had once called "a thorn for the entire Church": the Society of Saint Pius X. But risking or disturbing is not sinking.

    The founder is keeping watch.

    1. The trap of a fratricidal war.

    There is a great danger of trying to split the Society in two different parts, by gathering behind two different camps antagonized forces that were, however, raised in the same mold through forty years of energy, of efforts, and of prayers, of shared resistance to the prevailing Neo-modernism, and this despite the desertions of some and the excesses of others. Those who are now rubbing their hands thinking of a hypothetical division are already showing their true faces.

    On the one hand, they are the predators coming from Sedevacantist mini-chapels that have, as their main sign of charity, the fact that they hate one another, and that double their efforts to collect the bodies of  a fratricidal war. Abp. Lefebvre was categorical concerning these sowers of despair and destruction. Those who are today their American leaders are those same ungrateful sons who, in 1983, brought the aged archbishop before the courts in order to collect, in vain, the real estate "spoils" of the Society. They answer particularly to the names of Clarence Kelly, Donald Sanborn, Daniel Dolan...

    On the other hand, there are all the adversaries of the Tradition of the Church who agitate to despoil the main force of opposition to the Liberalism that destroys our societies. All their contacts in the media have unanimously presented the object of the correspondence disconnected from its private setting, wishing to transform the divergences between the bishops into public opposition. And in Paris, anticlerical forces already eye with envy the church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, this bastion of Catholic restoration, that appears as an object of prey due to what are essentially human disagreements.


    2.      Who will foot the bill?

    To tell the truth, the SSPX bishops themselves are not following a pattern of division. It is one thing to counsel, even firmly, one's superior to consider the consequences of his actions. It is quite another to state publicly what one thinks. And it is still something else to cause a division when one's superior has not compromised on the faith, which does not then justify disobedience. Let us take the example of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. In 1988, after he had, on May 30, counseled Abp. Lefebvre against the consecrations, he nonetheless followed the founder and received the episcopacy from his hands. These last few days, even after the reception of his superior, he has called the faithful to unity in several different places.

    But this, however, does not prevent the promoters of division from doing their work. Because, in the end, let us imagine a regularized Society: its priests will keep publishing the same weekly announcements, or pronouncing the same sermons. And its leaders will continue to criticize Assisi and the new mass. But a division for passionate motives will have as a consequence a decrease in the number of priests; the separatists will go to the large metropolitan areas, there where the greater number of faithful are found. On the other hand, in remote areas, the faithful will no longer benefit from the sacraments. And schools will close. Such will be the fruit of the division inspired by the enemy of God and by the historical enemies of the Society.

    3.      A thorn for the Church.

    The Society of Saint Pius X has a prophetic role in today's Church. If it were nothing more than the work of 550 priests along with their tens or hundreds of thousands of faithful, no one - and the Pope above all - would care for it. The Society is a thorn for the Church as the Society of Jesus was in its time, always condemned and regularized for its steadfast witness to the faith. The strongest souls are those that do not abandon everything under the impact of emotions, at the very gate of regularization or condemnation, that is, of the fact of a change of situation. They are those who manage to cross the ages and to withstand the circumstances with the same witness of faith. "A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand: but it shall not come nigh thee," says Psalm 90.

    This providential work lives essentially off two forces. First, the graces that God grants to it; then, the charism of its founder that remains the main opposing force to the new doctrines of the Council, whatever those who dispute the Society's legacy, on one side or the other, may say. It is not the sermon of a Father X or of a Father Y that will change that. It is not the admonition of a Prelate Z that will modify it. The Society is the bearer of a patrimony, that of the Church, that it transmits and will transmit, not only to some faithful, but to the largest number, in particular to the priests, whom Abp. Lefebvre had chosen as his preferred targets in a work that viewed itself primarily as priestly, apostolic, directed towards priests.

    True, this work of the Fraternity does not possess the gift of everlastingness. But its founder recalled correctly that God did not have the cynicism of bringing souls to combat to finally abandon them, agonizing, on the battlefields: "I do not believe," he said, "that the good God could have said up to now, 'Go on, go on,' and that suddenly He says, 'Stop!' When the works are good, He wants them to go on."[1] Abp. Lefebvre accepted huge sacrifices for the unity of his work. He will keep watch, one more time, that it may be liberated from the spirit of compromise as well as from that of despair, so that it may keep on advancing on this fine line that separates the Neo-modernist heresy on one side from the Sedevacantist schism on the other.

    Offline Exilenomore

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 720
    • Reputation: +583/-36
    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch
    « Reply #1 on: May 14, 2012, 03:13:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It seems that Bp. Fellay is already being portrayed as the 'hero' who will lead the sheep into Ratzinger's teilhardian vehicle of doctrinal evolution. Those who refuse to follow will be reviled for not imbibing the poison that is offered to them.

    The results of sede-plenism, which Bp. Fellay has adhered the most dogmatically to of the four bishops.


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch
    « Reply #2 on: May 14, 2012, 03:17:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Exilenomore
    It seems that Bp. Fellay is already being portrayed as the 'hero' who will lead the sheep into Ratzinger's teilhardian vehicle of doctrinal evolution. Those who refuse to follow will be reviled for not imbibing the poison that is offered to them.

    The results of sede-plenism, which Bp. Fellay has adhered the most dogmatically to of the four bishops.


    Archbishop Lefebvre, when sent a reply from Ratzinger that stated that Vatican II's teachings on religious liberty were a break with past teachings, decided to go ahead with the consecrations.

    Bishop Fellay says he "hopes" that Vatican II can be part of the Tradition of the Church.  That the problem is "application."  That he accepts 95% of it.

    There could be no greater disparity between the position of Bishop Fellay who accepts Vatican II for the sake of an agreement, and Archbishop Lefebvre who on recognizing the truly recalcitrant nature of the conciliarist heresy, decided to consecrate 4 bishops.

    Offline Exilenomore

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 720
    • Reputation: +583/-36
    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch
    « Reply #3 on: May 14, 2012, 03:23:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus


    There could be no greater disparity between the position of Bishop Fellay who accepts Vatican II for the sake of an agreement, and Archbishop Lefebvre who on recognizing the truly recalcitrant nature of the conciliarist heresy, decided to consecrate 4 bishops.


    And the co-consecrator of these four bishops told to the Rev. Fr. Paul Schoonbroodt on the evening before the consecrations that John Paul II was not the Pope.

    Yet, we are the ones being accused of 'fratricide'? It truly is so outrageous that there are barely words for it.

    Offline Ethelred

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1222
    • Reputation: +2266/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch
    « Reply #4 on: May 14, 2012, 03:41:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do we really need that underhand sellout propaganda of Anthony M here all the time?
    He's constantly perverting Archbishop Lefebvre's position (quoting out of the context, ignoring the Archbishop's last years which are his legacy, etc pp!) to justify Bp Fellay's betrayal which the Archbishop resisted to the last breath.

    Others including Seraphim proved it several times now, and of course Bishop Williamson's recent ECs and the letter of the three faithful bishops do prove it, but still these "tradi modernists" ignore it and continue.

    The Archbishop called Fr Bisig, and his FSSP, betrayers. Until a few years ago some SSPX priests being loyal to the Archbishop called the FSSP a Judas society.

    And today those "tradi modernists" like Anthony try to sell their FSSP copy aka Bp Felly's New-SSPX as what the Archbishop's would have wanted?

    That is dishonest. And it is disgusting. Stop it! I love the Archbishop too much to accept such a perversion.

    St. Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us.


    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch
    « Reply #5 on: May 14, 2012, 06:02:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It was to be expected people would appear to derail our opposition. Liberals permeate the Society as they do everywhere else. We are now subject to a rebranding of Abp. Lefebvre, not because these people liked the archbishop but because they cannot yet dump him without causing problems in the pews. So they sift out those words that are Rome-friendly and keep using them as reconciliation mantra. Post-reconciliation the archbishop will be archived along with Bp. de Castro Mayer and the 'Holy Father' will become the new icon.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9428
    • Reputation: +6606/-2209
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch
    « Reply #6 on: May 14, 2012, 06:50:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Anthony M
    The following article provides some insight to the current situation (for those interested):

    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch

    A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

    Taken from: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

    "The four #### bishops split," Le Figaro says in its headline. And, it must be said, the division has never seemed so apparent since they were consecrated by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, on June 30, 1988. Only apparently, because, at times, the internal differences have been pronounced, but they have not always been known to all. Likewise, whoever made the decision to bring to the public square the correspondence, took a decision that was extremely grave in its consequences, insofar as the act risked to disturb what a Cardinal had once called "a thorn for the entire Church": the Society of Saint Pius X. But risking or disturbing is not sinking.

    The founder is keeping watch.

    1. The trap of a fratricidal war.

    There is a great danger of trying to split the Society in two different parts, by gathering behind two different camps antagonized forces that were, however, raised in the same mold through forty years of energy, of efforts, and of prayers, of shared resistance to the prevailing Neo-modernism, and this despite the desertions of some and the excesses of others. Those who are now rubbing their hands thinking of a hypothetical division are already showing their true faces.

    On the one hand, they are the predators coming from Sedevacantist mini-chapels that have, as their main sign of charity, the fact that they hate one another, and that double their efforts to collect the bodies of  a fratricidal war. Abp. Lefebvre was categorical concerning these sowers of despair and destruction. Those who are today their American leaders are those same ungrateful sons who, in 1983, brought the aged archbishop before the courts in order to collect, in vain, the real estate "spoils" of the Society. They answer particularly to the names of Clarence Kelly, Donald Sanborn, Daniel Dolan...

    On the other hand, there are all the adversaries of the Tradition of the Church who agitate to despoil the main force of opposition to the Liberalism that destroys our societies. All their contacts in the media have unanimously presented the object of the correspondence disconnected from its private setting, wishing to transform the divergences between the bishops into public opposition. And in Paris, anticlerical forces already eye with envy the church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, this bastion of Catholic restoration, that appears as an object of prey due to what are essentially human disagreements.


    2.      Who will foot the bill?

    To tell the truth, the SSPX bishops themselves are not following a pattern of division. It is one thing to counsel, even firmly, one's superior to consider the consequences of his actions. It is quite another to state publicly what one thinks. And it is still something else to cause a division when one's superior has not compromised on the faith, which does not then justify disobedience. Let us take the example of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. In 1988, after he had, on May 30, counseled Abp. Lefebvre against the consecrations, he nonetheless followed the founder and received the episcopacy from his hands. These last few days, even after the reception of his superior, he has called the faithful to unity in several different places.

    But this, however, does not prevent the promoters of division from doing their work. Because, in the end, let us imagine a regularized Society: its priests will keep publishing the same weekly announcements, or pronouncing the same sermons. And its leaders will continue to criticize Assisi and the new mass. But a division for passionate motives will have as a consequence a decrease in the number of priests; the separatists will go to the large metropolitan areas, there where the greater number of faithful are found. On the other hand, in remote areas, the faithful will no longer benefit from the sacraments. And schools will close. Such will be the fruit of the division inspired by the enemy of God and by the historical enemies of the Society.

    3.      A thorn for the Church.

    The Society of Saint Pius X has a prophetic role in today's Church. If it were nothing more than the work of 550 priests along with their tens or hundreds of thousands of faithful, no one - and the Pope above all - would care for it. The Society is a thorn for the Church as the Society of Jesus was in its time, always condemned and regularized for its steadfast witness to the faith. The strongest souls are those that do not abandon everything under the impact of emotions, at the very gate of regularization or condemnation, that is, of the fact of a change of situation. They are those who manage to cross the ages and to withstand the circumstances with the same witness of faith. "A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand: but it shall not come nigh thee," says Psalm 90.

    This providential work lives essentially off two forces. First, the graces that God grants to it; then, the charism of its founder that remains the main opposing force to the new doctrines of the Council, whatever those who dispute the Society's legacy, on one side or the other, may say. It is not the sermon of a Father X or of a Father Y that will change that. It is not the admonition of a Prelate Z that will modify it. The Society is the bearer of a patrimony, that of the Church, that it transmits and will transmit, not only to some faithful, but to the largest number, in particular to the priests, whom Abp. Lefebvre had chosen as his preferred targets in a work that viewed itself primarily as priestly, apostolic, directed towards priests.

    True, this work of the Fraternity does not possess the gift of everlastingness. But its founder recalled correctly that God did not have the cynicism of bringing souls to combat to finally abandon them, agonizing, on the battlefields: "I do not believe," he said, "that the good God could have said up to now, 'Go on, go on,' and that suddenly He says, 'Stop!' When the works are good, He wants them to go on."[1] Abp. Lefebvre accepted huge sacrifices for the unity of his work. He will keep watch, one more time, that it may be liberated from the spirit of compromise as well as from that of despair, so that it may keep on advancing on this fine line that separates the Neo-modernist heresy on one side from the Sedevacantist schism on the other.


    Ah yes: Opposition to a sellout = sedevacantism.

    Against that charge, I would cite Bishop Fellay to Campos, after the latter made the same charge.

    Garbage.
    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 Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch
    « Reply #7 on: May 14, 2012, 06:54:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    Ah yes: Opposition to a sellout = sedevacantism.

    Against that charge, I would cite Bishop Fellay to Campos, after the latter made the same charge.

    Garbage.


    It's impossible to take these round and round arguments about sedevacantism seriously.  But it's not surprising that the double-mindedness of the SSPX position is very useful for switching positions and minimizing and even denying that one has changed positions.  One could call it, not to be hackneyed, Orwellian.


    Offline KyrieEleison

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 64
    • Reputation: +144/-0
    SSPX: The founder is keeping watch
    « Reply #8 on: May 14, 2012, 11:44:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Article posted by Anthony M=not worth the time of day to read.

    I didn't even have to read the propaganda you posted here to give you a thumbs down.  

    Your work here is obvious.  

    Do give Fellay my condolences.  His despicable moves in all this will come back to hurt him in the end.  I would not be surprised if after all this the Pope leaves him hanging high and dry and doesn't give him a personal prelature "no strings attached".   Poor, poor man.  He put all his eggs in the Pope's basket, throws his fellow bishops out the window, declares himself with the Pope, flippantly says "there may be a split" as if to say, oh well.  Not a wise move.  It wasn't for nothing that Archbishop Lefebvre called Cardinal Ratzinger the "artful dodger".

    You're backing the wrong horse Anthony and so is Fellay.











     

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