Author Topic: The Recusant - Issue 19 - August 2014 (Read 903 times)

Ecclesia Militans · « **on:** August 05, 2014, 06:37:26 PM »

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/08/05/the-recusant-issue-19-august-2014/

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2014, 07:50:08 PM »

Always a thumbs up for you for posting this material.

peterp · « **Reply #2 on:** August 06, 2014, 05:14:32 PM »

Heaven forbid that I do a Neil Obstat and start quoting and commenting on the latest issue of The Recusant ...

This is probably the most important issue published. It has been rushed - not in its publication - but in its release. The July issue was release less that three weeks ago. Then you have a five page editorial most of which is dedicated to the condemnation of Sede Vacantism, then follows two separate articles on the same subject by the Dominicans of Avrille and Fr. Chazal. Aside from a few pages of padding on La Barroux to push the page count over the thirty mark, this whole issue is devoted to Sede Vacantism. What's more, the very need to publicly report the 'bad news' is, in itself, telling: it isn't a one-off but there have been several occurances, there is a pattern of behavior, it poses a danger, and there is a need to broadcast to all immediately:

"In recent months a certain amount of damage and weakening has been caused in chapels founded by Resistance priests by the deliberate efforts of sedevacantist priests. ... Furthermore, there has been no open declaration of war: these priests do not openly state their goals. Often, their way into the Resistance chapel is that they allow themselves to be thought of as a Resistance priest, and do not alert people to their own change of priority or of thinking until the damage is done from inside."

So this is the subversive modus operandi of the SVs. The SV priests present themselves as independent 'Resistance' priests, offer their services, and once inside proceed to indoctrinate the faithful with SVism. Of course, we know SVs have been against the Society entering discussions with Rome [1] and have tried to scupper discussions [2], but their underhanded techniques have now turned on the Resistance. And they don't care how they do it: the ends justifies the means. [3]

However, 'The Recusant' has only detailed the SV plan involving the priests. The SV laity also play their part and you can see this on internet fora: here on CathInfo, IA before it closed and on SV websites. [4] The mis-information, lies, rumors is all designed to agitate, infuriate, and provoke SSPX faithful into leaving. And when they subsequently find they're only getting the sacraments twice a year, the offer from an apparent 'independent' priest is too good to turn down.

Fr. Chazal thinks he has a solution: to have all priests sign an oath. But that won't work. Two examples: (i) you already have one priest using the civil court to prosecute another despite the oath he took when he became a member of the Society. He is using secular law against ecclesiastical law; (ii) before the 2012 General Chapter all of the participants swore on a missal in front of the Blessed Sacrament to keep the proceedings of the Chapter private, yet they were subsequently leaked.

So, why and how were these oaths broken? Because of the #1 trump card - the salvation of souls - and so the priest is released from any promise/oath. It's being use 'cart blanche' to do as one wishes: it's a guerrilla war, anything goes, the ends justifies the means.

This all highlights a fundamental flaw in Bp. Williamson's design of a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience. The SV priests are independent, they freely contact each other, their Masses are valid, they have no obedience - they tick all the boxes! And as there is no structure they cannot be expelled.

[1]http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/interview-with-fr-pfluger-october-2010/
[2] When the Sedevacantists Inform the Progressivists, http://www.dici.org/en/news/press-review-bishop-fellays-meeting-with-cardinal-levada-on-june-13-2012/
[3] "SV's employed secular courts against the SSPX as a convenient weapon in combat.", http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32998&min=3&num=3
[4] http://www.dici.org/en/news/humors-and-rumors/

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** August 07, 2014, 12:14:32 AM »

.

Call me a recluse or call me flamboyant or call me a hip-shooter or call me anything you like (but please don't call me late for dinner!), I'm seeing nothing BUT good news in this Recusant.

...
As has been mentioned in the past, one of the differences between the Resistance and the slowly unravelling neo-SSPX is the Apostolic spirit, the Apostolicity. How is it then that there could be priests resist Menzingen’s modernism and who leave the neo-SSPX who are in any way less than apostolic? There may be various possible contributing factors, and it may be that each case is different, but from what I have been able to observe of the SSPX and the Resistance in this last year there seems to be one deciding factor, and it is a subject which must be dealt with as something which threatens to undermine the spirit and raison-d'être of the Resistance. I am speaking of sedevacantism. I use the word “sedevacantism” here as it is commonly understood, to represent an idea, not especially to represent any one group who espouse it. Readers may recall a previous editorial asking where the sedevacantist soup kitchens are to be found - one thing I find most worrying about sedevacantism is, that somehow it always seems to lead to a diminution of the apostolic spirit. Real life events appear to bear this out.

...

But what of the bad news? How does this relate to France? If you have not already guessed, it is that at least two of the French priests (if our information is correct) are now sedevacantists of one form or another. This is not to cast a pall over all of them. No doubt there are others who will prove differently, and as in the case of Germany and Austria mentioned above, we can see what a huge difference only one priest can make if he has the right approach and attitude. Our Lord’s words in the Gospel about judging the tree by its fruits, it seems to us, are as true as ever here, as I will attempt to demonstrate.

...

We sincerely hope, for that reason, that the French priests get their act together and decide that what they stand for is the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre, not just being against Menzingen. If the issue is settled sooner, there will be less potential harm, and less time lost. And what is more, it will help dispel any lingering notions amongst those of us who are not French that the French seem to regard themselves as special, not required to do the dirty work of others like Fr. Pfeiffer (the “cowboy” ha ha!) or Fr. Chazal (“the American!”), and the suspicion that a misplaced national pride is in part what has been holding them back!

A New Resource

At the time of writing, a new booklet entitled “Primary Sources for Studying the Crisis in the SSPX,” is being printed. It is designed as a collection into one place, in English, of all the docuмents from 2012 relating to the SSPX and Rome. A conscious decision was taken to include no commentary or interpolation, thus making the booklet entirely neutral and allowing it to be used by you, the reader, as a simple resource regarding the crisis in the SSPX. We intend, in addition, to send it to a large number of SSPX priests.

Even though this will involve a certain amount of expense, we offer it free and without charge, confident that your generosity will once again enable us to defray our costs. A time is surely coming soon when there will be almost nobody left, priests or faithful, who are willing and able to listen or to learn, and a lot of ears have been stopped-up and hearts hardened even in the last year, hence the importance of us making one last effort now, before it becomes too late. Many thanks in advance for your generosity.

Finally, permit me to wish all our readers, friend and foe alike, a blessed Feast of the Assumption.

. . . . . . . -The Editor