Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: The Psychology of Ecclesia Dei  (Read 1234 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline obscurus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 791
  • Reputation: +866/-23
  • Gender: Male
The Psychology of Ecclesia Dei
« on: April 04, 2015, 10:45:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From Bp. Tissier de Mallerais' bio of the Archbishop, pp. 570-572

    The Psychology of “Ecclesia Dei”

        The “Ecclesia Dei” Catholics are driven by various things. Fr. Bisig is the noblest with his faith in Rome; but his is an ill-formed faith that wishes to forget that Rome is occupied. He deals with a Rome that is happy to snatch a few followers from the “excommunicated” Archbishop and bring them back very gently to Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre commented: “It is obvious that by putting themselves in the hands of the present conciliar authorities, they implicitly accept the Council and the reforms that came from it, even if they receive privileges which remain exceptional and provisional. Their acceptance stops them saying anything. The bishops are watching them.” (Letter to Fr. Daniel Couture, March 18, 1989)

       Occupied Rome is also happy to prove that the situation of necessity asserted by the Archbishop does not exist. You see, they say, we give you everything that we offered to Archbishop Lefebvre on May 5: the Mass, the seminaries, continuation of ordinations according to the 1962 rite, pontifical right. Everything...except for a bishop!

       “Precisely,” as Archbishop Lefebvre emphasized, “what sort of bishop would it be if ever Rome granted one to ‘Ecclesia Dei’”?

       “What bishop? A bishop who suits the Vatican. In this case they would have a bsihp who would lead them very gently back to the Council. It is obvious. They will never have a bishop who is fully traditional and opposed to the errors of the Council and the post-conciliar reforms. That is why they did not sign the same protocol as ours because they do not have a bishop.” (Interview “One Year after the Consecrations,” Fideliter, no. 70 (July-August 1989): 5. Equally the “ralliés” [those who have taken part in the Ecclesia Dei “Ralliement”: see Chapter 19, n. 15. Trans.] have no voice on the Ecclesia Dei commission.)

       The last thing occupied Rome wants is a fully traditional bishop.

       Other “Ecclesia Dei” Catholics consider that ecclesial unity is as important as the unity of faith. This is truth for times of peace but not for an epoch of heresy and schism from Tradition. Moreover, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, the unity of the Church is not merely horizontal in space but also vertical in time.

       Dom Gérard, along with Jean Madiran, considered it”prejudicial to the very Tradition of the Church” to be “relegated outside of the offical visibile limits of the Church.” (Declaration of Dom Gérard, Présent, Aug. 18, 1988; Fideliter, no. 65: 18, 20) The Archbishop replied: “This business of the visibile Church according to Dom Gérard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is unbelievable that they can speak of the Conciliar Church as the visible Church in opposition to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. Mr. Madiran, who knows the situation very well, says that we are not in the visibile Church and that we are leaving the visible Church which has infallibility; these words do not express the reality of the situation.” (Fideliter, no. 70:6-8.)

       “Ecclesia Dei” Catholics in general think they work more effectively “from inside the Church” than Archbishop Lefebvre who, they say, has placed himself “on the outside.” The Archbishop replied energetically to this objection:

    Quote
    What Church are we talking about? If it is the Conciliar Church it would supposedly have been necessary for us (who fought against her for twenty years and who want the Catholic Church) to re-enter the Conciliar Church to make it, as it were, Catholic. This is a complete illusion. Subjects do not make the superiors; it is the superiors who make the subjects. With all the Roman Curia and in the midst of all the bishops of the world who are progressives, my voice would have been completely drowned out. I would have been incapable of doing anything to protect the faithful and the seminarians. They would have said to us: “Well, we are going to give you this bishop to do the ordinations; your seminarians will have to accept these professors from such and such a diocese.” It is impossible! In the Society of St. Peter they have professors from the diocese of Augsburg. Who are these professors? What do they teach? (Fideliter, no. 70:6-8.)


       Finally, other “Ecclesia Dei” Catholics are worried about the practical side of avoiding the harm inevitably caused to the development of the apostolate by the label of “excommunication,” (Cf. This topic is mentioned in the declaration of Dom Gérard quoted above.) especially in the middle classes, or “the smart set.” The priests who remained faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight —the immense majority—chose this risk rather than having to silence or diminish the truth. Above all they refused to see the traditional missal reduced to an “old-fashioned sensibility,” sidelined by conciliar pluralism, or ill-protected by a precarious indult.

       Mr. Madiran, too, was of this opinion. Why did he not follow Archbishop Lefebvre? He is not a follower, and he has only ever understood the Society and the Archbishop as “priests for the catacombs and our Noah’s arks.” (Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1987) Organizing stable institutions based on supplied jurisdiction seems to him strange or optional. The consecrations of June 30 were for him a question to be freely discussed, and his friendship for Romain Marie (Criticized for the ill-defined doctrine of his “H. et A. Charlier Center” in a conference of the Archbishop to seminarians in Flavigny on June 11, he distanced himself from the Archbishop on June 23, 1988, National Hebdo) and Dom Gérard made him at first refrain from taking sides. The Archbishop was concerned, and on August 19, 1988, he asked the journalist to choose: “During our twenty year fight your opinion and judgment have been of immense importance in sustaining and guiding the troops; this time once again, make the right choice.” But it was too late. Jean Madiran did not understand that once the consecrations were done, the nature of the question changed; while the consecrations were once a matter for free discussion, on June 30 they became the result of a leader’s prudent decision, requiring genuine agreement and confident, loyal support. As a victim of his scientific mind (in the sense of science as the intellectual virtue of proving an argument), Madiran wanted to prove a point where it was necessary to give loyal support. (Joseph, op. cit. J. Madiran tried to justify his position in Itinéraires, no. 325-326: “My loyalty [to the Archbishop] was general, thought-out, fervent, long-standing, well-known, open and accompanied by deep and filial gratitude...until June 11, 1988.”) Unable to prove anthing, he doubted, and in his doubt he distanced and separated himself from the Archbishop.

    Offline Francisco

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +811/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Psychology of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #1 on: April 05, 2015, 10:14:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is from a pamphlet  : “A Rome and Econe Handbook” published by Fr James Peek on behalf of the (SSPX) Holy Cross Seminary, on 8th December, 1997. (Copyright specifically not reserved on the Indian edition)

    …..Q10. CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS?

    The Society of St.Pius X could never profit by Rome’s Indult, firstly because of the conditions attached to it, and, in particular, that of acknowledging the “doctrinal and juridical value” of the New Mass, which is impossible – Q5; and secondly, but more fundamentally, because such an acceptance of the Indult would amount to saying that the Church had lawfully suppressed the Old Mass, which is certainly not the case (P20).

    But other priests have profited by it, some jumping at the chance to say the traditional Latin Mass, others only requested by their Bishop, and the odd one or two who would always say the Old Mass anyway but have accepted to do so under the auspices of the Indult “for pastoral reasons.”

    CAN WE ATTEND THEIR MASSES?

    If having to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.
    [ But beware – this condition may not be presented explicitly, but by implication, such as:
        - by a priest using Novus Ordo ways
           e.g. using a ciborium consecrated at a New Mass
           or with communion in the hand, new lectionaries,
           Mass facing the people etc.
           (and, for that matter, with what rite was he ordained?)
       
         - by sermons that are modernist in inspiration (much to be feared if the celebrant
            Habitually says the New Mass).

          - by offering only the revised forms of the sacraments, e.g. penance)

    This brings up the whole context of the Indult Mass:

    It is   – a ploy to keep people away from the Society of St. Pius X ( many Bishops                                    
                 allow it only where the is an  SSPX Mass centre);
             - for those who feel attached to the Latin Mass, but accept the doctrinal rectitude
                and juridical right of the NOM, Vatican II & all corresponding post-Conciliar
                orientations.

    Therefore, attending it, because of the priest’s words or fellow Mass-goers’ pressure, or because of the need to pander to the local Bishop, just to have it, inevitably pushes one to keep quiet on “divisive issues” and distance oneself from those who do not keep quiet i.e. it pushes one to join the ranks of those who are destroying the Church.
    This one cannot do. (cf also Q13)

    The Indult Mass, therefore, is not for traditional Catholics
          ( with the exception of the case of those priests who happen to be saying the Old      
             Mass under the Indult or with a Roman “celebret” but would be saying it anyway if these were denied them.)


    Offline sea leopard

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 108
    • Reputation: +116/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Psychology of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #2 on: April 08, 2015, 11:02:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. James Peek, Prof. / Teacher at STAS in Winona??? same one ??  anyone know for sure??

    Then it would seem logical he would be with the Resistance.

    Can you scan/ copy or PDF the entire article?  

    We should be making efforts to FIND "OLD" SSPX articles, writings, tapes, seminars, etc. that we can give the next generation to read so they would know what the Society taught during the time of the Archbishop and therefore how they have weakened in their teaching.

    GB the USA

    Offline Francisco

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1067
    • Reputation: +811/-0
    • Gender: Male
    The Psychology of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #3 on: April 09, 2015, 01:19:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: sea leopard
    Fr. James Peek, Prof. / Teacher at STAS in Winona??? same one ??  anyone know for sure??

    Then it would seem logical he would be with the Resistance.

    Can you scan/ copy or PDF the entire article?  

    We should be making efforts to FIND "OLD" SSPX articles, writings, tapes, seminars, etc. that we can give the next generation to read so they would know what the Society taught during the time of the Archbishop and therefore how they have weakened in their teaching.

    GB the USA


    Fr James Peek is the same one, and was the Rector of the Goulburn Seminary at that time. The original  booklet is of 44 pages and is marked - "Text approved by Menzingen", but an edited version was later published by the Angelus Press.

    Offline poche

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +499/-1071
    • Gender: Male
    The Psychology of Ecclesia Dei
    « Reply #4 on: April 09, 2015, 04:35:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If having to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.
    [ But beware – this condition may not be presented explicitly, but by implication, such as:
        - by a priest using Novus Ordo ways
          e.g. using a ciborium consecrated at a New Mass
          or with communion in the hand, new lectionaries,
          Mass facing the people etc.

    Communion in the hand and mass facing the people is not permitted in the TLM.
    new lectionaries? I thought we used a missal in the TLM.  


     

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