-
CI-
Does anyone know whether The Recusant has ceased publishing a monthly newspaper?
The last issue I am aware of was in February.
-
That's the last one that is on their site also, I hope there will be more issues. If I remember correctly is a volunteer operation so perhaps real world needs took precedence in March?
link (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the-recusant/)
Marsha
-
We put together a couple hundred this past weekend
Issue 15 March/April 44 pages (22 before folding!)
Check your postman
bye and GB
-
.
Maybe the Donate button was the most important one on the website.
There have been gentle reminders in a couple of issues, for those who are getting monthly mailings.
If you go to TheRecusant.com (http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/41822051-when-two-bishops-agree-fr-girouard#comments) you'll see a nice comment from Ed. regarding the great Fr. Girouard's recent sermon, When Two Bishops Agree............
"When Two Bishops Agree" - Fr. Girouard
Posted by The Editor on March 2, 2014 at 3:10 PM
Novus Ordo Bishop on his meeting with Bishop Fellay and how agreeable and 'flexible' on the question of the liturgy he was. We strongly recommend you to read Fr. Girouard's article and judge for yourself.
http://www.sacrificium.org/article/when-two-bishops-agree-hang-something-02-march-2014
.
Incidentally, this is not the first time a Novus Ordo prelate has claimed that Bishop Fellay has said to him something that sounds decidedly liberal-leaning about the New Mass (in private and off-the-record, of course. When Bishop Fellay thought nobody else was listening...) Many readers will no doubt remember how, just over a year ago, Cardinal Canizares claimed that Bishop Fellay had said something very similar to him:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-if-lefebrve-had-seen-proper-mass-he-may-not-have-split/
...of course this was followed immediately by a pompous, officious "official clarification (http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm)." We little layfolk should be so grateful to Menzingen for constantly "clarifying" things for us. Otherwise, who knows what mistaken impressions we might come away with...? that Bishop Fellay is more liberal in private than in public, for example? So far there has been no official clarification about this latest claim from a Novus Ordo bishop. Perhaps Menzingen are worried about some of the laity getting "clarification-fatigue"? Or perhaps they are hoping that most people won't notice, and the story can be quietly brushed under the carpet? Either way, one might reasonably wonder at Bishop Fellay's uncanny and very unfortunate knack of leaving people with the wrong impression about what he really thinks and where he really stands...
"As very often," said Bishop Fellay in his clarification, "a phrase was interpreted badly."
Quite. As very often.
It is utterly astounding how this one man in Menzingen has somehow managed to hoodwink the majority of SSPX faithful over the entire planet in his agenda of subterfuge. Most of the loyal regulars, when you present them with facts, they don't want to hear it, and they look for ways of blaming YOU for the message. "You must be anti-Fellay."
.
-
.
More recently, there's a posting from April 5th regarding Fr. Pivert in France:
(http://www.therecusant.com/Fr%20Pivert.jpeg)
Via La Sapiniere comes the following encouraging news. In the latest edition of his newsletter "Combat de la Foi" ("The Fght for the Faith"), which was banned even before it had come out, Fr. Pivert adds his signature to the "Address to the Faithful" from January this year, exposes the subversion of the authorities of the SSPX, and announces his intention to help the priests and faithful acting against the betrayal which has taken place.
.
A priest for some 30-odd years, Fr. Pivert is a seasoned veteran of the "old SSPX", widely respected within the French district, who until now had been the prior of the retreat house "Moulin des Pins" in France.
Those who read French can order a copy of his newsletter (€10) from the following address:
Mde Séghiri
Parçay
86700 Romagne
FRANCE
.
.
.
In case you missed it, the acclaimed "Address to the Faithful" from January this year is one of two great news items you won't find on Fox or ABC or whatever. The other one was the "Letter in Support of Fr. Altamira from the Colombian Faithful," Bogota, January 10th, A.D. 2014, with 256 signatories.
If you don't know, you're missing out.
.
-
.
Maybe the Donate button was the most important one on the website.
There have been gentle reminders in a couple of issues, for those who are getting monthly mailings.
If you go to TheRecusant.com (http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/41822051-when-two-bishops-agree-fr-girouard#comments) you'll see a nice comment from Ed. regarding the great Fr. Girouard's recent sermon, When Two Bishops Agree............
"When Two Bishops Agree" - Fr. Girouard
Posted by The Editor on March 2, 2014 at 3:10 PM
Novus Ordo Bishop on his meeting with Bishop Fellay and how agreeable and 'flexible' on the question of the liturgy he was. We strongly recommend you to read Fr. Girouard's article and judge for yourself.
http://www.sacrificium.org/article/when-two-bishops-agree-hang-something-02-march-2014
.
Incidentally, this is not the first time a Novus Ordo prelate has claimed that Bishop Fellay has said to him something that sounds decidedly liberal-leaning about the New Mass (in private and off-the-record, of course. When Bishop Fellay thought nobody else was listening...) Many readers will no doubt remember how, just over a year ago, Cardinal Canizares claimed that Bishop Fellay had said something very similar to him:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-if-lefebrve-had-seen-proper-mass-he-may-not-have-split/
...of course this was followed immediately by a pompous, officious "official clarification (http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm)." We little layfolk should be so grateful to Menzingen for constantly "clarifying" things for us. Otherwise, who knows what mistaken impressions we might come away with...? that Bishop Fellay is more liberal in private than in public, for example? So far there has been no official clarification about this latest claim from a Novus Ordo bishop. Perhaps Menzingen are worried about some of the laity getting "clarification-fatigue"? Or perhaps they are hoping that most people won't notice, and the story can be quietly brushed under the carpet? Either way, one might reasonably wonder at Bishop Fellay's uncanny and very unfortunate knack of leaving people with the wrong impression about what he really thinks and where he really stands...
"As very often," said Bishop Fellay in his clarification, "a phrase was interpreted badly."
Quite. As very often.
It is utterly astounding how this one man in Menzingen has somehow managed to hoodwink the majority of SSPX faithful over the entire planet in his agenda of subterfuge. Most of the loyal regulars, when you present them with facts, they don't want to hear it, and they look for ways of blaming YOU for the message. "You must be anti-Fellay."
.
What hits me right away in this is that the "official clarification" promises to provide "this clarification of what he actually said," and then uses no quotation marks at all, leading me to believe that what the clarification contains is nothing in fact of what he actually said, but only what he would now wish that he would have said at the time if he were to have known then what he knows now, such as, that he would be accountable for his own words to the cardinal.
For the record, here is a copy of the archives page of Bishop Fellay clarifying, before they decide it's no longer useful so they scrub it from the site like they've done with so many other similar pages:
a pompous, officious "official clarification (http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm)."
SSPX FAQs
DONATE
ARTICLES INDEX
APOLOGETIC
MATERIALS
FOR PRIESTS
CHAPELS
SCHOOLS
CAMPS
RETREATS
APOSTOLATES
DISTRICT
HEADQUARTERS
SSPX LINKS
THIRD ORDERS
VOCATIONAL INFO
PILGRIMAGES
AGAINST THE
SOUND BITES
CATHOLIC FAQs
REGINA COELI
REPORT
DISTRICT
SUPERIOR'S LTRs
SUPERIOR
GENERAL'S NEWS
Join our e-mail list
EDOCERE.ORG
CONTACT INFO
What
Bishop Fellay really said to Cardinal Canizares
about the
New Mass
Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX Superior General
1-21-2013
Cardinal Antonio Canizares, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, stated to the press on January 15th:
On one occasion, Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, “We just came from an abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did”… The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form.[1]
Bishop Fellay has kindly given sspx.org this clarification of what he actually said, and the context of his words, concerning the Novus Ordo Missae.
Bishop Fellay clarifies...
As very often in such circuмstances, a phrase has been interpreted badly: I was describing to Cardinal Canizares (and this was some five or six years ago) that the abuses in the liturgy have caused a major reaction amongst us. And this is still the case today, in the sense that the abuses and sacrileges in the sacred liturgy have helped the faithful and even priests to quickly and more fully understand the profound defects and danger of the Novus Ordo - because there is a link between the New Mass and the abuses. The abuses have helped to prove that our position is the right one: that is, the New Mass is not good in itself.
But this said, from the beginning and before the abuses took place, Archbishop Lefebvre had already refused to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. Because the serious omissions and the whole [conciliar] reform, done in an ecuмenical spirit, gives it a Protestant savor. The New Mass puts at risk the Catholic Faith and the numerous examples of faithful and priests who have lost the Faith directly linked with the celebration of the Novus Ordo are quite blatant. Nevertheless for a while - and until these new damaging effects were clearly recognized - Archbishop Lefebvre did not strictly prohibit attendance at the New Mass. It was only after a few years that he prohibited the seminarians from going to the New Mass while on their holiday’s vacations.
Footnote
1 As reported by Rome Reports on January 16, 2013 in an article entitled, “Cardinal Canizares: The most urgent reform is liturgical formation”.
sspx.org © 2013 home contact
-
.
If you take a few minutes to work with what you've got, there is plenty to do even without the issue #15 in your mailbox, yet.................................
It helped me to make that previous post, because putting it all together in one place like that, it becomes more obvious that the "official clarification" of +F doesn't mention anything about what Cardinal Canizares was talking about, even though +F was claiming to provide the "context" of his words and "what he actually said."
There are several things that now fairly jump off the page:
1) If the Cardinal had been under the impression that there was any such context, he would likely have made some mention of that, but he did not. He gave not a single hint of any such 'context' at all.
2) The so-called context proffered by +F does not even make sense in regards to the statement of the Cardinal. See Below.
3) What +F provides in his so-called clarification talks about a different topic for 4/5 of the words, and then suddenly at the end he jumps to a side issue regarding the seminarians that only vaguely perhaps possibly is in the remotely distant similar topic, but not really. See Below.
4) If what +F provides as a clarification were really what he had said to the Cardinal, the Cardinal probably would not have given him the time of day, because that is not anything the Cardinal would have wanted to hear. Therefore, it is neither the context nor the actual words that +F had used, even if it were what he had in mind at the time, which I highly doubt was the case.
Had +F said these things when he had met with the Cardinal, it would have been like this (the bold covers direct quotes from +F's so-called clarification):
Cardinal Canizares (CC):
Hello, Bishop Fellay, it's nice to see you today! Welcome! Come right in to my office!
+Fellay:
Thank, you, your Eminence! It's great to be here.
CC:
So, what do you have for me today, some good news?
+F:
Oh, I have great news. Here are a few things I've had on my mind for a long time and I thought you would do well in knowing about it. Firstly, I have to provide some context. The abuses in the liturgy have caused a major reaction amongst us. This is still the case today, in the sense that the abuses and sacrileges in the sacred liturgy have helped the faithful and even priests to quickly and more fully understand the profound defects and danger of the Novus Ordo - because there is a link between the New Mass and the abuses. The abuses have helped to prove that our position is the right one: that is, the New Mass is not good in itself.
CC:
Wait a minute. I thought you said there was some good news. Do you recall who I am or where you are? This is my office. I am Cardinal Canizares. Are you losing your grip on reality, Bishop Fellay?
+F:
Please, forgive me, you Eminence! I was just trying to provide some context so that later on, like next year or the year after, I can give my eager audience some snippets of some tough talk that we exchanged today. It's all for internal management, you see.
CC:
Oh, I guess then it's not what I thought it was. All right then, proceed. Get on to the good news, now, would you, please?
+F:
All right, then. This having been said, from the beginning and before the abuses took place, Archbishop Lefebvre had already refused to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. Because the serious omissions and the whole [conciliar] reform, done in an ecuмenical spirit, gives it a Protestant savor.
CC:
Now just one minute here. You just told me again that you have some GOOD NEWS for me, and here you go saying that the ORDINARY ROMAN RITE of MASS has a quote, "protestant savor?" Are you and I from the same PLANET, Bishop Fellay? Protestant Savor, does it? Are you saying I am a protestant, your Excellency?
+F:
Oh, no, Your Eminence. I wasn't saying that at all. It's just that the New Mass puts at risk the Catholic Faith and the numerous examples of faithful and priests who have lost the Faith directly linked with the celebration of the Novus Ordo are quite blatant.
CC:
That's it. I'm calling security. You are flat-out nuts, man. You're off your rocker. I can't afford the insurance premiums I'd have to pay letting you stand here and spout your insanity like this. Here they are. Officer, conduct this man to the front door and bid him farewell, because he is a threat to our security here.
+F:
But Your Eminenece! You haven't heard the best part yet! Nevertheless, for a while - and until these new damaging effects were clearly recognized - Archbishop Lefebvre did not strictly prohibit attendance at the New Mass.
CC:
That's right, show him the front door! (Armed secrurity guards have +F by each elbow and are pulling him down the hallway as +F shouts over his shoulder toward the office of Cardinal Canizares.)
+F:
It was only after a few years that he prohibited the seminarians from going to the New Mass while on their holiday’s va-a-a-ca-a-a-a-tio-o-o-o-o-ns! (+F's voice fades away as Security turns the corner toward the front door.)
Now, according to this version of +Fellay's, where does the Cardinal arrive at his own version which says the following? (As reported by Rome Reports on January 16, 2013 in an article entitled, “Cardinal Canizares: The most urgent reform is liturgical formation”):
Cardinal Antonio Canizares, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, stated to the press on January 15th:
On one occasion, Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, “We just came from an abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did”… The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form.
Maybe I'm not quite imaginative to do it, but try as I may, I cannot find any place in +F's so-called clarification where this version of Cardinal Canizares can fit -- AT ALL.
Anyone else who would like to give it a shot ----- BE MY GUEST!!
.
-
.
The new issue had better hurry up, because we'd be having too much fun in its absence already.
I have two more versions ready to roll, if anyone is interested. And I can't seem to figure out how to make that Cazinares version squeeze into the +Fellay version.
H-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-LP!
.
-
Does anyone have a copy of the March/April edition they can post here?
-
Does anyone have a copy of the March/April edition they can post here?
So you'd like someone to post 44 pages here? You'd better go find Ecclesia Militans because I don't expect anyone else would be willing to undertake that kind of task.
But then again, by the time he's got a minute to answer your request, it's going to be already after he's finished scanning and posting the PDF of those same 44 pages.
..............Omission: I missed this one factoid. The linked archives page (http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/what_bishop_fellay_really_said_to_cardinal_canizares_about_the_new_mass_1-21-2013.htm) is headlined in large block letters as follows:
What
Bishop Fellay really said to Cardinal Canizares
about the
New Mass
(http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/bishop_fellay_recessional_mass225.jpg)
...............but it looks more like this:
What
Bishop Fellay
really said to
Cardinal
Canizares
about the
New Mass
............... and then the page goes on to provide not a word of quoted text, not a word.
The sspx.org archive page is headlined,
"What Bishop Fellay really said,"
and then proceeds to offer nothing of what he really said, but only what he WANTS you to THINK that he said, and that is a pile of nonsense. He wants you to think a bunch of nonsense about what he said,
"to Cardinal Canizares about the New Mass."
In other words, the headline is a deception.
If it were honest, it would say,
What
Bishop Fellay
would really
like you to think
he said to
Cardinal Cazinares
about the
New Mass."
.
-
I dont see a reference to a March/April 2014 edition of The Recusant anywhere on the internet (including EM's website).
This implies to me there is no such edition.
-
.
Sorry, I mistakenly left that period and end-double-quotation mark at the end of the previous post. They should be removed. It should look like this:
What
Bishop Fellay
would really
like you to think
he said to
Cardinal Cazinares
about the
New Mass
I dont see a reference to a March/April 2014 edition of The Recusant anywhere on the internet (including EM's website).
This implies to me there is no such edition.
So you're saying that sea leopard must be lying? Or did you not read his post, above?
Wait, you MUST have read it otherwise you wouldn't have known that it's a March/April issue. That is, you wouldn't be calling it a March/April issue without some kind of confirmation of it being such. You would have to GUESS that it's a March/April issue, whereas according to the OP, you're much more at ease with presuming that there are going to be NO MORE issues.
.
-
.
Rats. Another mistake. It should look like this:
What
Bishop Fellay
would really
like you to
think he said to
Cardinal Canizares
about the
New Mass
.
-
.
FYI: sea leopard's post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31000&min=0#p2):
We put together a couple hundred this past weekend
Issue 15 March/April 44 pages (22 before folding!)
Check your postman
bye and GB
I made it a larger font so maybe it's easier to read, for you.
All of The Recusant issues have been double the pages after folding.
I know this for a fact because I have also folded them, and unfolded them.
I have shared them with friends and I have made about 30 people aware of them.
And I remain perplexed as to how I could be the only one telling them these things.
But you won't find any mention of my activities anywhere on the Internet, either,
that is, until this present post right here, where I mention them.
Of course, you are at liberty to presume I'm lying too, since there is nowhere to verify what I have said here to you, SeanJohnson.
Alternatively, you could simply read it, and take it at face value, if that's not too much to ask of you.
I dont [sic] see a reference to a March/April 2014 edition of The Recusant anywhere on the internet (including EM's website).
This implies to me there is no such edition.
This post by sea leopard, BTW, is "on the Internet."
Sorry, I don't know what else to say.
.
-
.
Here's a little piece of suet to chew on while you're waiting for your 44 pages from TheRecusant.
This could be in your Collection of Resistance Writings, but it's only a Google translation.
(Source (http://./thread/1458/45-priests-sign-declaration-resistance)):
Jan 19, 2014 at 3:31am ServusSpiritusSancti, donkath and 5 more like this.
Quote
Post Options
Post by Archangel on Jan 19, 2014 at 3:31am
Posted this Morning on LaSapiniere:
(Google Translation)
This address to the faithful has been signed by 45 priests and read this Sunday, January 19, 2014 in their respective chapel.
Number of colleagues have been reluctant to join in, or under the effect of pressure, or arrested by the intention of the Abbe de Cacqueray to itself decisive action to Menzingen. But the Abbe de Cacqueray abandoned his courageous project to settle for yet another text that shines once more by ambiguity.
On January 16, Bishop Fellay explained in an internal three-page docuмent that the holes in the boat he made were well within the rules of art ... And a fortnight before, Father Pfluger said the brothers recollection that the Society should be "purified" ...
Already, following the declaration of the three bishops of June 27, 2013 and despite its ambiguities, the Abbe de Cacqueray had given an ultimatum he issued to Bishop Fellay. As Bishop Tissier, he regrets today and in private, have signed off on this dangerous statement. But the damage is done ... The time is approaching when many colleagues, tired of those typical liberal subtleties leave their hesitant silence to regain freedom from apostolic word, for the greater good of souls and the glory of God.
The address to the faithful is followed by the list of signatories and an explanation of Father Bruno.
ADDRESS TO THE FAITHFUL
Faithful to the legacy of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in particular his memorable "Declaration" of 21 November 1974, we adhere with all our heart, all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and traditions necessary to maintain this faith to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.
In the example of this great prelate, fearless defender of the Church and the Apostolic See, we refuse by cons and have always refused to follow the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant Rome which was clearly manifested in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms and policies that are derived.
Since 2000 and especially since 2012 the authorities of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X are in the opposite direction, approaching modernist Rome.
The doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012, followed by the expulsion of a bishop and many priests and confirmed by the sentence of the book 'Our relationship with Archbishop Lefebvre Rome', all this shows pertinacity in this way that leads to death .
No authority, even higher in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith clearly expressed and professed by the Magisterium of the Church for twenty centuries.
Under the protection of Our Lady guardian of the faith, we intend to continue the survival operation begun by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Accordingly, in the tragic circuмstances in which we find ourselves, we are our priesthood available to all those who want to remain faithful to the fight of faith. That is why, right now, we are committed to respond to the requests we will do to support your families in their educational tasks, provide priestly formation for young people that want it, and ensure the Mass, the sacraments and doctrinal formation wherever it is necessary.
As for you, we urge you to be zealous apostles to the reign of Christ the King and Mary Queen.
Long live Christ the King!
Notre Dame guardian of the faith, protect us!
Saint Pius X, pray for us!
On 7 January two thousand and fourteen.
We are available to our fellow priests: some were not able or not desired, initially at least, to join in our approach. They do not hesitate to contact one of us (discretion assured).
Contact: adresse.fidele @ gmail.com
We are even available to the religious of Tradition which include the extreme gravity of the current situation.
List of signatories
1. Abbe de Merode (prior, France)
2. Father Koller (prior, France)
3. Father Vignalou (France)
4. Father Hubert de Sainte-Marie Lamb (France)
5. Father Nicolas Pinaud (France)
6. Father Matthew Salenave (France)
7. Father Olivier Rioult (France)
8. Father Pierre-Marie OP and 10 other fathers Avrillé (France)
19. OSB Father Bruno (France)
20. April father, founder of the work of Our Lady of Salérans (France)
21. Father Raffali and community Stellamarins (France)
22. Abbe Picot (Kenya)
23. Father Jean-Michel Faure (South America, Member of Chapter 2012)
24. Father Chazal (Asia)
25. Father Florian Abrahamowicz (Italy)
26. Father Brühwiller (Switzerland)
27. Abbot Martin Fuchs (Austria)
28. Father Girouard (Canada)
29. Father David Hewko (USA)
30. Abbe Pierre-Célestin Ondo Ndong (Gabon)
31. Father Ernesto Cardozo (Brazil)
32. Father Arturo Vargas (Mexico)
33. Father Fernando Altamira (Colombia)
34. Abbot Hugo Ruiz (Mexico)
35. Father Juan Carlos Ortiz (Australia)
36. Father Frank Sauer (Germany)
37. Father Eduardo Suelo (Asia)
38. Father Richard Voigt (USA)
39. Father Arnold Trauner (Austria)
40. Father Trincado (Mexico)
41. Father Valan Rajkunan (Asia)
42. Father Raphael Arizaga OSB (Mexico)
43. Father Thomas Aquinas Ferreira da Costa OSB (Brazil)
44. Father Jahir Brito, FMBV (Brazil)
45. Father Daniel Joaquim Maria Sant'ana, FMBV (Brazil)
Why I signed our "address to the faithful" by Father Bruno
Some accuse us of being restless, excessive, to be driven by impatience or a bitter zeal. I can truly say that I wrote the following "no bitterness, no resentment" (Lefebvre, Declaration of 21 November 1974) vis-à-vis anyone lines.
Bédoin entered in 1980, ordained priest by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1986, I left Barroux in 2002. I then held various departments in the district of France of the Brotherhood. To date (19 January 2014), I am stationed at Priory Gavrus near Caen.
In recent years, I have observed with growing concern the signs that show a change of mindset in the Tradition. I am open to repeatedly District Superior of France, the Abbe de Cacqueray. I also wrote, in April 2012, Bishop Fellay himself (letter remained unanswered).
Many colleagues and faithful certainly already know my position. But for months appeared to me more clearly the need to express publicly, officially, my categorical refusal shift the General House seeks to impose.
I can no longer in good conscience rob me of that duty.
The priest must love the truth more than anything.
The priest must bear witness to the truth at any cost.
The priest must denounce the same mistake when it comes to the top, regardless of the consequences it may suffer.
He must firstly because he is the representative and the Minister of Our Lord, who proclaimed during his Passion: "If I was born, so I came into this world, to testify to the truth . "
He also must because it is the service of souls: our dear faithful have a right to the truth, and they expect their pastors a clear position, therefore public.
This is the meaning of our "address to the faithful," the drafting of which I had the grace to participate. It is not a declaration of failure, but rather the public witness of our unwavering commitment to the principles that have guided the Archbishop in the fight of faith.
Our text is deliberately short, and some of the faithful are hardly aware of the events of the past two years in Tradition, some guidance can help to grasp the scope of the "address".
I - The first two paragraphs, and the fifth ("No authority ..."), are borrowed, except for one detail, the Declaration of Loyalty (published several times, including August 15, 2013), taking and adapting the Declaration Archbishop Lefebvre on 21 November 1974, which is the charter of the Catholic resistance to the conciliar religion.
II - The fourth paragraph mentions three elements: a doctrinal statement, excluding members of the Fraternity, the conviction of a book.
1) "Doctrinal Statement of 15 April 2012" the text presented in Rome by Bishop Fellay is outrageous and unacceptable. To take just one example, he recognized the legitimacy of the promulgation of the new church. Moreover, when a year later the docuмent was published in Cor unum, Bishop Fellay claimed to have done "as Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988." There there objectively a grave offense to the memory of Bishop: it never has recognized the legitimacy of the promulgation of the "Mass bastard" as he called it in a memorable sermon of 1976.
2) "The exclusion of a bishop and many priests" should be adding other sanctions, particularly the conviction of Abbe Pinaud. The sentence is null and void does not detract from its truly odious character.
This second point is closely related to the first: it is very significant that the text strikes a Father Pinaud suspense acknowledge our colleague have said that the Declaration of 15 April was "a danger to the faith," which is perfectly correct.
3) "The condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre book, Our relations with Rome" : It is based on a study of 16 pages, unsigned, but the Abbe Thouvenot states that it "substantially corroborates the judgment" Bishop Fellay. This "review" includes passages outrageous. Note that this is probably the most serious: The author of this note which substantially corroborates the judgment of Bishop Fellay criticizes Abbe Woodpecker "to focus on specific aspects" (p. 7). And the example he gives is that soon ... Christ the King. Particular aspect? It is instead the idea of ​​Archbishop Lefebvre! "We must always be concerned about [the reign of Our Lord]" (Sermon for the Feast of Christ the King, 1978). "We have to be, I would say, almost obsessed with this need, by the need to meditate on this mystery of our Lord and spread his reign. We have no other purpose other reason to be priests to reign our Lord Jesus Christ "(conference Écône, June 3, 1980) ... This is very general thoughts, some would say. But when it comes specifically relations with Rome, it is very precisely that "Father Woodpecker argues that 'it is this loyalty [Christ the King] that plays all the drama between Rome and Écône' "(p. 7). Discerned from the words of my lord: "The real fundamental opposition is the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ Oportet illum regnare, he must reign, St. Paul tells us, Our Lord. come to rule. They say no, we say yes, with all the popes "(conference Sierre, November 27, 1988). When in 1976 the nuncio claims that the social reign of Our Lord is no longer possible, and that the Pope would write more encyclical Quas primas today (Pius XI), the prelate was indignant: "We are no longer the same religion! [...] If there is something we have been looking for all our lives, it is the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ "(conference Écône, August 20, 1976). And in 1987, at a conference for priests, he brings his reply to Cardinal Ratzinger: "Our apostolate is the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That's what we are. And you do the opposite "(Écône, 4 September 1987).
III - In the sixth paragraph, we place our journey of faith under the protection of "Our Lady Guardian of the Faith." This is the title of the Virgin Bourguillon sanctuary near Freiburg, where Bishop led his first seminarians to devote his nascent work at Our Lady Guardian of the Faith.
Over forty years later, when a terrible crisis shakes the Tradition, we must do everything to save the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre: Brotherhood, as an institution, may disappear or at least lose its identity (ie which is, alas happening), but the legacy of Monsignor: his mind, his principles, his fight in the service of Christ the King and Holy Church, this heritage can not, must not disappear . With the grace of God and the help of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, we will maintain.
"The first evidence of loyalty and love that the priest has to give God and men, wrote Father Calmel is to keep intact the infinitely precious deposit that was entrusted to him when the bishop laid his hands. "
Last Edit: Jan 19, 2014 at 3:36am by Archangel
Quis ut Deus?
Archangel
Regular
*
Archangel Avatar
Posts: 124
Jan 19, 2014 at 3:33am needleduck likes this.
Quote
Post Options
Post by Archangel on Jan 19, 2014 at 3:33am
Note that this declaration is far from including all resistance priests.
Notable names missing would include Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer, the religious associated with Dom Tomas Aquinas, etc.
Last Edit: Jan 19, 2014 at 3:39am by Archangel
Quis ut Deus?
Archangel
Regular
*
Archangel Avatar
Posts: 124
Jan 19, 2014 at 3:52am
Quote
Post Options
Post by Archangel on Jan 19, 2014 at 3:52am
Ancien Regime or TheRecusant:
We need your help.
This docuмent is too important to linger as a Google translation.
Can you please offer a better translation from the LaSapiniere article?
Last Edit: Jan 19, 2014 at 3:53am by Archangel
Quis ut Deus?
Archangel
Regular
*
Archangel Avatar
Posts: 124
Jan 19, 2014 at 4:31am Bridget and Adrienne like this.
Quote
Post Options
Post by Archangel on Jan 19, 2014 at 4:31am
Also, there are currently 5 resistance priests working in Germany, but the list of signatories includes only 1.
Would be a nice project to compile a list of current worldwide resistance apostolates, including name, address, and contact information.
Last Edit: Jan 19, 2014 at 4:31am by Archangel
Quis ut Deus?
judamore
New Member
*
judamore Avatar
Thanks for the invite. Us to be together in prayer for the Church's Tradition. Forgive my English...
Posts: 1
Jan 19, 2014 at 6:58am
Quote
Post Options
Post by judamore on Jan 19, 2014 at 6:58am
Archangel Avatar
Jan 19, 2014 at 3:33am Archangel said:
Note that this declaration is far from including all resistance priests.
Notable names missing would include Bishop Williamson, Fr. Pfeiffer, the religious associated with Dom Tomas Aquinas, etc.
I do not know about the others, but Father Cardozo signed. As well as other priests associated with Don Tomás. And himself Don Tomas.
Read carefully!
immaculata
New Member
*
immaculata Avatar
Posts: 1
Jan 19, 2014 at 7:00am Tradfly likes this.
Quote
Post Options
Post by immaculata on Jan 19, 2014 at 7:00am
I have found it on the website: www.custos-sancto.blogspot.com
The signing of Father Pfeiffer is present,
it will be added.
God bless You! God bless our Resistance Priests!
Liste der Unterzeichner
Die Unterzeichnung von Pater Pfeiffer ist vorhanden,
Wird der Liste ergänzt.
1. Abbé de Mérode (prieur, France)
2. Abbé Koller (prieur, France)
3. Abbé Vignalou (France)
4. Abbé Hubert de Sainte-Marie d’Agneau (France)
5. Abbé Nicolas Pinaud (France)
6. Abbé Matthieu Salenave (France)
7. Abbé Olivier Rioult (France)
8. Père Pierre-Marie OP et les 10 autres pères d’Avrillé (France)
19. Père Bruno OSB (France)
20. Père Avril, fondateur de l’œuvre de Notre-Dame de Salérans (France)
21. Père Raffali et sa communauté des Stellamaris (France)
22. Abbé Picot (Kenya)
23. Abbé Jean-Michel Faure (Amérique du sud, Membre du chapitre de 2012)
24. Abbé Chazal (Asie)
25. Abbé Florian Abrahamowicz (Italie)
26. Abbé Brühwiller (Suisse)
27. Abbé Fuchs Martin (Autriche)
28. Abbé Girouard (Canada)
29. Abbé David Hewko (USA)
30. Abbé Pierre-Célestin Ndong Ondo (Gabon)
31. Abbé Ernesto Cardozo (Brésil)
32. Abbé Arturo Vargas (Mexique)
33. Abbé Fernando Altamira (Colombie)
34. Abbé Hugo Ruiz (Mexique)
35. Abbé Juan-Carlos Ortiz (Australie)
36. Abbé Frank Sauer (Allemagne)
37. Abbé Eduardo Suelo (Asie)
38. Abbé Richard Voigt (USA)
39. Abbé Arnold Trauner (Autriche)
40. Abbé Trincado (Mexique)
41. Abbé Valan Rajkunan (Asie)
42. Père Raphaël Arizaga OSB (Mexique)
43. Père Thomas d’Aquin Ferreira da Costa OSB (Brésil)
44. Père Jahir Brito, FMBV (Brésil)
45. Père Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant’ana, FMBV (Brésil)
Übernommen von: www.aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr
Source : la sapiniere.info
Übersetzung Sr. Benedicta
TheRecusant.com
Regular
*
TheRecusant.com Avatar
Posts: 80
Jan 19, 2014 at 8:13am
Quote
Post Options
Post by TheRecusant.com on Jan 19, 2014 at 8:13am
Archangel Avatar
Jan 19, 2014 at 3:52am Archangel said:
Ancien Regime or TheRecusant:
We need your help.
This docuмent is too important to linger as a Google translation.
Can you please offer a better translation from the LaSapiniere article?
We will see what can be done. Although, for a google translation, it doesn't look too bad...
Machabees
Regular
*
Machabees Avatar
Posts: 153
Jan 19, 2014 at 9:18pm
Quote
Post Options
Post by Machabees on Jan 19, 2014 at 9:18pm
"45 Priests Sign Declaration of Resistance..."
If the math comes out between Fr. Pfeiffer stating that there already was about 30-40 sspx priests standing up, and now another 22, that's 52-62 sspx priests; which equals approx. 12% of the 500 who are resisting Menzingen's new-doctrine.
Every time Bishop Fellay does something foolish, again and again, that number climbs each month; but his prudish and square-toed behavior only wishes to place blame on the "ill-mentality" of those who oppose him.
I wonder if his afternoon book reading is really consumed with fiction rather than on the meat of Catholic Doctrine.
You are what you surround yourself with...and over the last two-years, we are only receiving from him fairy-tale stories.
hoc est bellum
Regular
*
hoc est bellum Avatar
Posts: 112
Jan 19, 2014 at 9:47pm Ethelred likes this.
Quote
Post Options
Post by hoc est bellum on Jan 19, 2014 at 9:47pm
"I wonder if his afternoon book reading is really consumed with fiction rather than on the meat of Catholic Doctrine."
I don't know. Is this considered fiction?
"Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth,
will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged
on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such
pestilent men from the face of the earth." - St. Francis of Assisi
needleduck
Veteran
**
needleduck Avatar
Posts: 1,069
Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18pm ServusSpiritusSancti, donkath and 5 more like this.
Quote
Post Options
Post by needleduck on Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18pm
AWESOME! As mentioned above, this list leaves out some names, and it also doesn't count the many priests who have voiced support for the Resistance in private, but who as of yet have not made any moves. Pray that this gives them the courage to act on their convictions. And another thing that I believe is very important: is for the Resistance faithful to remember their pledges and promises to these brave priests and to support them financially and with prayer. Even seemingly token amounts can make a big difference when they are combined. God bless these good and holy priests!
(And Bishop Williamson, of course.)
Last Edit: Jan 19, 2014 at 10:28pm by needleduck: vive la resistance!
Adrienne
Regular
*
Adrienne Avatar
'My doctrine is not Mine, but of Him that sent Me.' John 7:16
Posts: 374
Jan 21, 2014 at 6:12pm
Quote
Post Options
Post by Adrienne on Jan 21, 2014 at 6:12pm
needleduck Avatar
Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18pm needleduck said:
AWESOME! As mentioned above, this list leaves out some names, and it also doesn't count the many priests who have voiced support for the Resistance in private, but who as of yet have not made any moves. Pray that this gives them the courage to act on their convictions. And another thing that I believe is very important: is for the Resistance faithful to remember their pledges and promises to these brave priests and to support them financially and with prayer. Even seemingly token amounts can make a big difference when they are combined. God bless these good and holy priests!
(And Bishop Williamson, of course.)
Thanks for the best reminders, needle duck!
Thank for the best reminders, needleduck!
Last Edit: Jan 21, 2014 at 6:12pm by Adrienne: pesky spell-check jumps my fret button...
'To seek to reconcile the faith with the modern spirit leads much further than people think, not only to the weakening of the faith, but to its total loss.' - Pope St. Pius X, May 27th A.D. 1914
'When foulness invades the whole Church, we must return to the Church of the past.' – St. Vincent of Lerins
-
Can you please quote for me any content from this phantom March/April edition?
Can you name me one person who has received this alleged March/April Recusant edition (anonymous internet monikers don't cut it)?
Can you explain why nobody on the planet has referenced any content from this allegedly existing issue?
Can you prove such an edition exists?
Why not?
Because it doesn't?
Or is it now an underground periodical, only distributed to approved persons, and then, only on the condition they not distribute it or quote from it?
Unlikely.
This heavily implies there is no such edition, and The Recusant is no longer publishing since the February edition.
-
.
There's nothing I can do about the Google-trans defect.
So I also included the comments, for they're somewhat helpful. Here's one that kind of stands out in the crowd:
Machabees
Regular
*
Machabees Avatar
Posts: 153
Jan 19, 2014 at 9:18pm
Quote
Post Options
Post by Machabees on Jan 19, 2014 at 9:18pm
"45 Priests Sign Declaration of Resistance..."
If the math comes out between Fr. Pfeiffer stating that there already was about 30-40 sspx priests standing up, and now another 22, that's 52-62 sspx priests; which equals approx. 12% of the 500 who are resisting Menzingen's new-doctrine.
Every time Bishop Fellay does something foolish, again and again, that number climbs each month; but his prudish and square-toed behavior only wishes to place blame on the "ill-mentality" of those who oppose him.
I wonder if his afternoon book reading is really consumed with fiction rather than on the meat of Catholic Doctrine.
You are what you surround yourself with...and over the last two-years, we are only receiving from him fairy-tale stories.
.
-
Can you please quote for me any content from this phantom March/April edition?
Can you name me one person who has received this alleged March/April Recusant edition (anonymous internet monikers don't cut it)?
Can you explain why nobody on the planet has referenced any content from this allegedly existing issue?
Can you prove such an edition exists?
Why not?
Because it doesn't?
Or is it now an underground periodical, only distributed to approved persons, and then, only on the condition they not distribute it or quote from it?
Please keep in mind (I know it's hard to imagine this) that there are certain people in this world who would be very desirous of STOPPING the new Issue from ever showing up. Now, I know you're not among them, SeanJohnson, but I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps you might not be so very free of their ideological influence.
The tentacles of the monster can be very long, and hard to identify at length.
Unlikely.
This heavily implies there is no such edition, and The Recusant is no longer publishing since the February edition.
Keep in mind that your post here is going to be here tomorrow and the next day, after everyone gets their mail.
This isn't the first time you've run off half-cocked with a hot head and a short fuse, Mr. Johnson.
.
-
Thanks for admitting that as of this moment, no such issue exists.
Talk about pulling teeth!.
Next question: Does the Recusant intend to publish a newsletter in the future?
-
.
Perhaps you're overlooking something.
This heavily implies there is no such edition, and The Recusant is no longer publishing since the February edition.
Please forgive me if I presume too much, but when you ask if it's still publishing, doesn't that imply that TheRecusant has been producing a publication, and therefore, TheRecusant would be a publisher?
Who ever said that TheRecusant is a publisher, producing a publication?
What kinds of things do you normally see printed in the front few pages of any periodical? Publication data?
Can you provide for us any example whatsoever of any such 'publication data' to be found in any one of the previous 14 Issues?
On the last page of the last Issue I see the following:
Contact us:
recusantsspx@hotmail.co.uk
www.TheRecusant.com
It's surrounded by a rectangular box with curved corners, which I can't manage to reproduce here in this post. Sorry.
But that's the only thing remotely close that I can find to any "publication data" in Issue #14. Now stop and think about this: could you or I or anyone else, for that matter, be unable to crank out such a thing? What is there to stop anybody from getting a hotmail e-mail account (they're free and require no ID or qualifications) and a dot-com website (that might cost something but not much)?
.
-
Thanks for admitting that as of this moment, no such issue exists.
Talk about pulling teeth!.
Next question: Does the Recusant intend to publish a newsletter in the future?
Where did I say that no such issue exists?
Have you somehow still not read sea leopard's post? Oh, right, you don't trust usernames. But then why do you trust me? I'm just another sea-leopard-esque username. Oh, right. You don't trust me.
Okay, so feelings are not mutual. I trust you, but you don't trust me. I suppose that's my fault, not yours. Sorry again.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
.
-
.
Maybe THIS is the problem. There is another typo, this time it's sea leopard's fault and then it's also my fault for having repeated it.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
It should say 11 2-sided pages, before folding, not 22 pages.
.
FYI: sea leopard's post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31000&min=0#p2):
We put together a couple hundred this past weekend
Issue #15, March/April, 44 pages
(22 [11pp, 2-sided, before folding!])
Check your postman
bye and GB
I made it a larger font so maybe it's easier to read, for you.
All of The Recusant issues have been double the pages (4 x the leaves) after folding.
(Issue #5 for example, was 8 leaves, 2-sided, folded, thus 32 pp.)
I know this for a fact because I have also folded them, and unfolded them.
I have shared them with friends and I have made about 30 people aware of them.
And I remain perplexed as to how I could be the only one telling them these things.
But you won't find any mention of my activities anywhere on the Internet, either,
that is, until this present post right here, where I mention them.
Of course, you are at liberty to presume I'm lying too, since there is nowhere to verify what I have said here to you, SeanJohnson.
Alternatively, you could simply read it, and take it at face value, if that's not too much to ask of you.
I dont [sic] see a reference to a March/April 2014 edition of The Recusant anywhere on the internet (including EM's website).
This implies to me there is no such edition.
This post by sea leopard, BTW, is "on the Internet."
Sorry, I don't know what else to say.
.
-
Can you please quote for me any content from this phantom March/April edition?
Can you name me one person who has received this alleged March/April Recusant edition (anonymous internet monikers don't cut it)?
Can you explain why nobody on the planet has referenced any content from this allegedly existing issue?
Oh! Oh! I know!
Nobody on the planet has referenced any content from this allegedly existing issue because it's the same thing that happened the other day when I spent 3 months copying Issue #12 in a thread here on CI and the bulk of the posts have not a single comment from any CI members, INCLUDING SEANJOHNSON, BTW.
The reason is...................(drum roll).............DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION!! That's why.
It's the thing that +F relies on so as to evoke disinterest from pew-sitters whenever they encounter the objective reasons that they ought to question every word that comes out from between his Swiss lips.
Can you prove such an edition exists?
Why not?
Because it doesn't?
Or is it now an underground periodical, only distributed to approved persons, and then, only on the condition they not distribute it or quote from it?
What's this, more non-thinking drivel from a mind full of mush?
TheRecusant is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be an "underground periodical," a.k.a., publication.
It is not, has not been, nor will it ever be distributed to approved persons only.
It is not likewise prohibited for anyone to distribute it or quote from it.
Where Are You Getting These Fantasies?
Are you reading the same fiction in the afternoon that +Fellay is????????
Unlikely.
This heavily implies there is no such edition, and The Recusant is no longer publishing since the February edition.
TheRecusant cannot stop publishing, Sean. That would be utterly impossible. And I can prove it. (So could you, too, actually, but then you'd have to t-h-i-n-k.)
(Let's see if you pay attention this time, when I address you by your first name.)
.
-
.
Most of the loyal regulars, when you present them with facts, they don't want to hear it, and they look for ways of blaming YOU for the message. "You must be anti-Fellay."
.
Interesting that that is how the average Novus Ordo person reacts when you try to explain to them that something bad happened to the Church in the last 40-50 years. In their case, they might substitute something like "anti-Pope xxxx", but they shoot the messenger just the same.
-
Update...
Just got a call from a friend who says he is currently printing the latest (as yet undistributed) issue of The Recusant.
Apparently, it is a bit late, but alive and well.
-
.
Okay, now I get it.
Here I was, thinking that this poor fellow, SeanJohnson, is making a spectacle of himself by proving how big his mouth is, in a physical way. Not everyone can fit their foot into their own mouth like this, repeatedly, no less.
But then I realized that this pathetic Johnson-person suffers from a malady very common today, known as subjectivism, whereby something is only real to him if that something exists in his own mind, for reality is in the mind.
Don't make me guess: You Don't Have Any Problem With That, Do You. (no question mark)
Thanks for admitting that as of this moment, no such issue exists.
What you were thinking here, S.J., is that no such issue exists IN YOUR MIND, and therefore, no issue exists at all, since your reality is in your mind. Is Not That Correct. (Ibid.)
Talk about pulling teeth!
I would appreciate it if you were not to "Talk about pulling teeth!"
Next question: Does the Recusant intend
First you want quotes or excerpts or scanned images from Issue #15, before it has arrived in anyone's mail box (apparently), and then you demand to know what some third party's INTENTIONS are, when they're not here to answer you?!
(Did you know: there is a standard distinction between ?! and !?)
to publish a newsletter in the future?
Where did I say that no such issue exists?
Please note: this is yet another simple question that you have managed to ignore.
Have you somehow still not read sea leopard's post? Oh, right, you don't trust usernames. But then why do you trust me? I'm just another sea-leopard-esque username. Oh, right. You don't trust me.
Okay, so feelings are not mutual. I trust you, but you don't trust me. I suppose that's my fault, not yours. Sorry again.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
.
-
.
Most of the loyal regulars, when you present them with facts, they don't want to hear it, and they look for ways of blaming YOU for the message. "You must be anti-Fellay."
.
Interesting that that is how the average Novus Ordo person reacts when you try to explain to them that something bad happened to the Church in the last 40-50 years. In their case, they might substitute something like "anti-Pope xxxx", but they shoot the messenger just the same.
I've heard, "You're just opposed to the Pope."
And when I've replied, "Was St. Paul opposed to the Pope when he resisted him to his face?" -I have been told, "BUT HE WAS SAINT PAUL!"
You have to allow them about two seconds right there, because they'd be overtaxed if you don't wait, before you say, "When he said that, he was not known as being a saint. In fact, he trembled to his core with fear that he would fail to secure his own salvation, for he was terrified that he would commit some mortal sin before he died, which, by the way, is what ALL THE SAINTS have feared."
And if they can stand it, you can add, "When Paul opposed Peter to his face, he was NOT afraid that he was committing any sin. Paul knew he was doing the right thing, because what he was doing was squarely based on DOCTRINE, and that's exactly what I'm doing, too. What I'm doing is based on doctrine."
.
-
What a lot of fuss.
Sean Johnson, I apologise that we are a little late getting the March/April issue out. It is late because we're not Angelus Press, we don't charge people, we don't make lots of money (we don't make any money!), I don't draw a nice handsome editors salary (in fact I don't get any salary, not a single penny), and in the meantime real life occasionally gets in the way. It's free because it's a work offered to Almighty God, not a business.
I'll take this thread as a compliment, however. It's nice to have one's efforts appreciated now and then.
And now, if you don't mind, I haven't really time for much more discussion, interesting though it no doubt would be.
-
What a lot of fuss.
Sean Johnson, I apologise that we are a little late getting the March/April issue out. It is late because we're not Angelus Press, we don't charge people, we don't make lots of money (we don't make any money!), I don't draw a nice handsome editors salary (in fact I don't get any salary, not a single penny), and in the meantime real life occasionally gets in the way. It's free because it's a work offered to Almighty God, not a business.
I'll take this thread as a compliment, however. It's nice to have one's efforts appreciated now and then.
And now, if you don't mind, I haven't really time for much more discussion, interesting though it no doubt would be.
Most appreciated!
-
PS - I've sent it to Ecclessia Militans, so the pdf version ought to be online soon. I'm grateful to him for donig that for us, as I am also to our friends in the US who help with distribution over there. People in the US will probably get their well before people in GB, because although it has been printed here, it won't be for a few more days until I have time to travel to the printers, collect the 400 copies, and bring them back in a suitcase by public transport... Of course, if I were willing to pay a little extra each month, I could have them delivered to me from the printers by courier.
But then how would that be payed for?
-
What a lot of fuss.
Sean Johnson, I apologise that we are a little late getting the March/April issue out. It is late because we're not Angelus Press, we don't charge people, we don't make lots of money (we don't make any money!), I don't draw a nice handsome editors salary (in fact I don't get any salary, not a single penny), and in the meantime real life occasionally gets in the way. It's free because it's a work offered to Almighty God, not a business.
I'll take this thread as a compliment, however. It's nice to have one's efforts appreciated now and then.
And now, if you don't mind, I haven't really time for much more discussion, interesting though it no doubt would be.
You can perhaps rest assured, Ed., that SeanJohnson is only interested in Issue #15 because he suspects that someone has falsified the names of the Dominicans of Avrille on the list of signatories to the January Letter to the Faithful. He is all worked up into a tizzy over finding out that something untoward has taken place, and he hopes he can find a clue in this new Issue.
Apparently TheRecusant has become known as "a periodical" and you've been "publishing." Another feather in your cap, that?
.
-
Neil Obstat,
Why are you treating SeanJohnson like that ? You sound so hot headed and full of bitter zeal. And you are wrong too. On this thread, you made at least one false accusation against SeanJohnson and your posts came across as very proud and insulting. I don't care on which side of the fence you are, but I wish you were not part of the Resistance. I'd be ashamed of associating with you. Did you notice that SeanJohnson did NOT return the insults and bitterness ?
If you have not charity, you have NOTHING !
I come here to stay informed and occasionally engage in a respectful and objective discussion, not to be witness to someone ranting and raving about trivialities !
-
.
Dear Nobody,
You are making no sense here.
Neil Obstat,
Why are you treating SeanJohnson like that ?
Like what?
You sound so hot headed and full of bitter zeal.
I'm sorry I must have missed that. Can you provide one example, or two?
And you are wrong too. On this thread, you made at least one false accusation against SeanJohnson
So I'm wrong, am I? I made two typos and I corrected them. Are you referring to something else? If so, it would be informative for you to identify it so I can have some clue what in the world you're talking about.
and your posts came across as very proud and insulting.
And yours don't? You're proudly insulting me with no evidence, and what, that's okay?
I don't care on which side of the fence you are,
What "fence" are you dreaming up now? Does it have a name?
but I wish you were not part of the Resistance. I'd be ashamed of associating with you.
What is the Resistance, anyway? Do you have a definition? Are you telling me I should not be Catholic, or, are you saying I should not use any logic, to be more like you, for example?
Did you notice that SeanJohnson did NOT return the insults and bitterness ?
Do you need a list of those as well?
If you have not charity, you have NOTHING !
I come here to stay informed and occasionally engage in a respectful and objective discussion, not to be witness to someone ranting and raving about trivialities !
Gosh, I wish I could understand what you're specifically accusing me of.
Should I make a list? Because I doubt you could make one.
He repeatedly questioned that there would be any more issues, and demanded someone to prove him wrong. That's like saying, can you prove you have stopped beating you wife? Or can you prove that they will not build a bridge over this river? Now that we have confirmation that the new Issue #15 is in process, and SeanJohnson was wrong, and I was right, you're defending his insolence and suspicions? And that's what you think means charity?
I called him on it and he went nuts. Is that my fault? We even had a post from another member testifying to the copies being in process, but he wouldn't believe that -- not convincing enough for him. So what's the big deal?
What false accusation did I make, anyway? Can you name it, or are you just happy with blanket statements like that?
What bitterness are you referring to? Is fact and logic foreign to your thinking?
Sometimes logic can seem rough, but that's usually when you're on the erroneous side of the dividing line. It seems to me you're pretty confused as to what charity means.
.
-
.
I just read the whole thread again and it seems that I neglected to put any smiley like this guy: :laugh1: every time I cracked a joke. Therefore, there might not be some readers or maybe just Nobody at all, would be able to tell when it's just some dry humor going on.
So it's not productive to provide any energy and levity to the mix, in an attempt to make it enjoyable, because there might not be readers, or one reader, or Nobody at all, who 'gets it'. :laugh2:
Is it funnier when I laugh at my own jokes? :roll-laugh2:
.
-
:applause: :applause: :applause::
Lent is long... We needed a respite, thanks!! :)
.
If you take a few minutes to work with what you've got, there is plenty to do even without the issue #15 in your mailbox, yet.................................
It helped me to make that previous post, because putting it all together in one place like that, it becomes more obvious that the "official clarification" of +F doesn't mention anything about what Cardinal Canizares was talking about, even though +F was claiming to provide the "context" of his words and "what he actually said."
There are several things that now fairly jump off the page:
1) If the Cardinal had been under the impression that there was any such context, he would likely have made some mention of that, but he did not. He gave not a single hint of any such 'context' at all.
2) The so-called context proffered by +F does not even make sense in regards to the statement of the Cardinal. See Below.
3) What +F provides in his so-called clarification talks about a different topic for 4/5 of the words, and then suddenly at the end he jumps to a side issue regarding the seminarians that only vaguely perhaps possibly is in the remotely distant similar topic, but not really. See Below.
4) If what +F provides as a clarification were really what he had said to the Cardinal, the Cardinal probably would not have given him the time of day, because that is not anything the Cardinal would have wanted to hear. Therefore, it is neither the context nor the actual words that +F had used, even if it were what he had in mind at the time, which I highly doubt was the case.
Had +F said these things when he had met with the Cardinal, it would have been like this (the bold covers direct quotes from +F's so-called clarification):
Cardinal Canizares (CC):
Hello, Bishop Fellay, it's nice to see you today! Welcome! Come right in to my office!
+Fellay:
Thank, you, your Eminence! It's great to be here.
CC:
So, what do you have for me today, some good news?
+F:
Oh, I have great news. Here are a few things I've had on my mind for a long time and I thought you would do well in knowing about it. Firstly, I have to provide some context. The abuses in the liturgy have caused a major reaction amongst us. This is still the case today, in the sense that the abuses and sacrileges in the sacred liturgy have helped the faithful and even priests to quickly and more fully understand the profound defects and danger of the Novus Ordo - because there is a link between the New Mass and the abuses. The abuses have helped to prove that our position is the right one: that is, the New Mass is not good in itself.
CC:
Wait a minute. I thought you said there was some good news. Do you recall who I am or where you are? This is my office. I am Cardinal Canizares. Are you losing your grip on reality, Bishop Fellay?
+F:
Please, forgive me, you Eminence! I was just trying to provide some context so that later on, like next year or the year after, I can give my eager audience some snippets of some tough talk that we exchanged today. It's all for internal management, you see.
CC:
Oh, I guess then it's not what I thought it was. All right then, proceed. Get on to the good news, now, would you, please?
+F:
All right, then. This having been said, from the beginning and before the abuses took place, Archbishop Lefebvre had already refused to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. Because the serious omissions and the whole [conciliar] reform, done in an ecuмenical spirit, gives it a Protestant savor.
CC:
Now just one minute here. You just told me again that you have some GOOD NEWS for me, and here you go saying that the ORDINARY ROMAN RITE of MASS has a quote, "protestant savor?" Are you and I from the same PLANET, Bishop Fellay? Protestant Savor, does it? Are you saying I am a protestant, your Excellency?
+F:
Oh, no, Your Eminence. I wasn't saying that at all. It's just that the New Mass puts at risk the Catholic Faith and the numerous examples of faithful and priests who have lost the Faith directly linked with the celebration of the Novus Ordo are quite blatant.
CC:
That's it. I'm calling security. You are flat-out nuts, man. You're off your rocker. I can't afford the insurance premiums I'd have to pay letting you stand here and spout your insanity like this. Here they are. Officer, conduct this man to the front door and bid him farewell, because he is a threat to our security here.
+F:
But Your Eminenece! You haven't heard the best part yet! Nevertheless, for a while - and until these new damaging effects were clearly recognized - Archbishop Lefebvre did not strictly prohibit attendance at the New Mass.
CC:
That's right, show him the front door! (Armed secrurity guards have +F by each elbow and are pulling him down the hallway as +F shouts over his shoulder toward the office of Cardinal Canizares.)
+F:
It was only after a few years that he prohibited the seminarians from going to the New Mass while on their holiday’s va-a-a-ca-a-a-a-tio-o-o-o-o-ns! (+F's voice fades away as Security turns the corner toward the front door.)
Now, according to this version of +Fellay's, where does the Cardinal arrive at his own version which says the following? (As reported by Rome Reports on January 16, 2013 in an article entitled, “Cardinal Canizares: The most urgent reform is liturgical formation”):
Cardinal Antonio Canizares, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, stated to the press on January 15th:
On one occasion, Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, “We just came from an abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did”… The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form.
Maybe I'm not quite imaginative to do it, but try as I may, I cannot find any place in +F's so-called clarification where this version of Cardinal Canizares can fit -- AT ALL.
Anyone else who would like to give it a shot ----- BE MY GUEST!!
.
-
.
Dear Nobody,
You are making no sense here.
Neil Obstat,
Why are you treating SeanJohnson like that ?
Like what?
You sound so hot headed and full of bitter zeal.
I'm sorry I must have missed that. Can you provide one example, or two?
And you are wrong too. On this thread, you made at least one false accusation against SeanJohnson
So I'm wrong, am I? I made two typos and I corrected them. Are you referring to something else? If so, it would be informative for you to identify it so I can have some clue what in the world you're talking about.
and your posts came across as very proud and insulting.
And yours don't? You're proudly insulting me with no evidence, and what, that's okay?
I don't care on which side of the fence you are,
What "fence" are you dreaming up now? Does it have a name?
but I wish you were not part of the Resistance. I'd be ashamed of associating with you.
What is the Resistance, anyway? Do you have a definition? Are you telling me I should not be Catholic, or, are you saying I should not use any logic, to be more like you, for example?
Did you notice that SeanJohnson did NOT return the insults and bitterness ?
Do you need a list of those as well?
If you have not charity, you have NOTHING !
I come here to stay informed and occasionally engage in a respectful and objective discussion, not to be witness to someone ranting and raving about trivialities !
Gosh, I wish I could understand what you're specifically accusing me of.
Should I make a list? Because I doubt you could make one.
He repeatedly questioned that there would be any more issues, and demanded someone to prove him wrong. That's like saying, can you prove you have stopped beating you wife? Or can you prove that they will not build a bridge over this river? Now that we have confirmation that the new Issue #15 is in process, and SeanJohnson was wrong, and I was right, you're defending his insolence and suspicions? And that's what you think means charity?
I called him on it and he went nuts. Is that my fault? We even had a post from another member testifying to the copies being in process, but he wouldn't believe that -- not convincing enough for him. So what's the big deal?
What false accusation did I make, anyway? Can you name it, or are you just happy with blanket statements like that?
What bitterness are you referring to? Is fact and logic foreign to your thinking?
Sometimes logic can seem rough, but that's usually when you're on the erroneous side of the dividing line. It seems to me you're pretty confused as to what charity means.
.
Dear Neil Obstat, here we go :
You've accused SeanJohnson of '..presuming..', '..lying..', '..half-cocked with a hot head and a short fuse..', '..you don't trust me..', '..non-thinking drivel from a mind full of mush..', '..reading the same fiction in the afternoon that +Fellay is..', ..but then you'd have to t-h-i-n-k..', '..making a spectacle of himself by proving how big his mouth is..', '..pathetic Johnson-person suffers from a malady..', nit picking on 'publication vs edition', 'anywhere on the internet'.. Is that enough proof for you that your posts sound uncharitable, hot headed and bitter ?
Regarding your false accusation : you said SeanJohnson in his OP was presuming that there would be no more issues of the Recusant. The only thing I read in that OP was a question, not a presumption.
Can you now list the insults that SeanJohnson threw at you in this thread, and which according to you justify an 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' ?
Can you also tell me which part of my first post you found insulting, or illogic ?
It takes more to be Catholic than getting facts right, you also have to act in all patience and charity.
I have been looking forward myself to the next edition (or publication/issue/..) of the Recusant, and I have wondered myself whether there would be another one. Is that a crime ? That was the OP of SeanJohnson. You could have just replied like this :
I have seen the hard copy, hopefully the electronic copy will be put up soon.
-
I have been looking forward myself to the next edition (or publication/issue/..) of the Recusant, and I have wondered myself whether there would be another one. Is that a crime ? That was the OP of SeanJohnson. You could have just replied like this :
I have seen the hard copy, hopefully the electronic copy will be put up soon.
I wouldn't have replied like that because it would be a lie. I had not seen any copy, hard or electronic. While that's what he was looking for, I could not give it to him, but if I could have, I would have. But I couldn't so I didn't.
That was then, and this is now. BTW, now, the electronic copy IS available (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_recusant_-_issue_15_-_march_april_2014.pdf). So I was right, he was wrong, while you incorrectly think I was wrong and he was right, so that makes you wrong, too. Both yours and his positions are proven indefensible, yet you continue to accuse me, without any basis in reality. Go figure.
As for the rest, it seems to me that a woman shouldn't get involved where the big boys are playing. You don't belong in the ring.
So go home, and take a break. Wash some dishes. Get ready for Holy Week. :smile:
.
-
.
One choice quote from the New Issue:
Clearly if Menzingen were to strike a deal with modern Rome in the coming months, it would in many ways be the best news the Resistance has received since all this nonsense began two years ago (Is it really two years already!?). And that is precisely why I must caution prudence. Let us not get our hopes up. It may turn out that even Menzingen wouldn’t do anything quite so stupid. And if they do, we have nothing to gain by staying up all night waiting for it to happen. Some people would obviously wake up and leave the SSPX. But I fear the number would be small. Many of those who left would not necessarily leave in the right direction. And a great many would not leave at all. Months and years of doing nothing and inventing clever-sounding excuses risks leaving one spiritually lobotomised, numbed and incapable of finding the way out. Consider also that this might also be an effect of the latest bogus rosary crusade.
To be fair, the same criticism hurled at me would be hurled at Ed. for using language like this:
quite so stupid
wake up and leave
inventing clever-sounding excuses
spiritually lobotomised
numbed and incapable
bogus rosary crusade
As +W would say, "how un-CHA-wi-ta-bow." (Wimper :cry: )
And,
Please also make a not in your diary to come to the Walsingham Pilgrimage in mid-July.
Make a not in your diary? A knot? A nut? A nit?
This is the kind of thing that shows why Ed. does not presume to be a "publisher."
.
-
I have been looking forward myself to the next edition (or publication/issue/..) of the Recusant, and I have wondered myself whether there would be another one. Is that a crime ? That was the OP of SeanJohnson. You could have just replied like this :
I have seen the hard copy, hopefully the electronic copy will be put up soon.
I wouldn't have replied like that because it would be a lie. I had not seen any copy, hard or electronic. While that's what he was looking for, I could not give it to him, but if I could have, I would have. But I couldn't so I didn't.
That was then, and this is now. BTW, now, the electronic copy IS available (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_recusant_-_issue_15_-_march_april_2014.pdf). So I was right, he was wrong, while you incorrectly think I was wrong and he was right, so that makes you wrong, too. Both yours and his positions are proven indefensible, yet you continue to accuse me, without any basis in reality. Go figure.
As for the rest, it seems to me that a woman shouldn't get involved where the big boys are playing. You don't belong in the ring.
So go home, and take a break. Wash some dishes. Get ready for Holy Week. :smile:
.
How brave of you ! You just ignore the substance of my replies, you miserably fail to take responsibility for your poor behavior and either defend yourself or apologize, and then you pretend to be a big boy while your opponent gets sent home to do the dishes.
Poor Neil Obstat, I have seen greater dignity, courage, charity and intellectual honesty from most, if not all of the woman on this forum.
-
.
From page 6, the great Fr. Patric Girouard is quoted:
My dear readers, I think we have here another example of the danger you put yourself in when you start frequenting the Novus Ordo hierarchy. They will meet with you, even eat with you, and the nicer they are the quicker you are going to say to yourself: “Well, they are not so bad after all! They are quite friendly and quite open to Tradition! They are against the abuses! Maybe we misjudged them! Maybe we were too rigid! How can we expect them to change if we don’t give them some signs of good will? And maybe we didn’t really understand the Council!” Next thing you know, you are going to love being received as a friend by Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes, and you will want this to continue. And it is only a matter of time before you propose (or do not oppose the proposition) to celebrate the Old Mass in the vernacular, and before you write and say things that sound just like what they had told you!
The next step of course, will be to smash anything and anybody who stands in the way of your “recognition” by the same hierarchy. This is what happens when you get too close to those infected by pestilence: You get accustomed to the smell, you forget the danger, and you get infected too! So my dear readers: Beware! Don’t risk catching what Bishop Fellay and his Neo-SSPX have been infected with: The pestilence of Liberalism!
Oh, dear! Fr. Girouard is so un-CHA-wi-ta-bow, too! He said,
smash anything and anybody
those infected by pestilence
the smell of pestilence
the danger of pestilence
you get infected with pestilence, too
Bishop Fellay and his Neo-SSPX have been infected with the pestilence of Liberalism!
Who's that hiding in the corner, wringing her hands? Oh, don't worry, it's Nobody.
.
-
.
Why Is The Society (sspx) in a Tailspin Nosedive?
[/size]
From page 13 (Fr. Pinaud is quoting another priest):
As for the bond of charity, I can only observe that it as good as no longer exists. We have entered into a warlike war frame of mind, and cινιℓ ωαr too. A lot of wounds were still bleeding, and Father Pinaud’s trial, far from bringing appeasement, might well open new wounds. A Society without brotherly charity or doctrinal unity, we will soon be a body without a soul, a gathering of priests united by the common table they are sitting at but no longer united in their hearts. Such ‘unity’ cannot last long, as alas the example the Institute of the Good Shepherd shows.
Excellency, in the face of so many ills, your episcopate gives you the means to act. The wicked sentence against Father Pinaud is only the result of a more profound ill which will end up ruining the fight for the faith if you do not remedy it. Priests and faithful have their eyes on the teaching Church. How much longer will we continue to tear each other apart?
This letter has turned from protest to supplication to implore your Excellency to bring us back to peace, tranquillity and order. It is not through sanctions that this peace will return, but by mending the breaches, by tending to the wounds they have caused, and by restoring a clear, coherent doctrinal line around which priests and faithful will rally. It’s not just a question of the Society, but the fight for the faith, the defence of Tradition for which the one to whom we all owe our priesthood, Archbishop Lefebvre, gave more than his life.
...Page 14 (Fr. Pinaud):
I am not sure this formula will make history but maybe is it only the sign of human prudence, because, as we know, times are dangerous, and it is not good to say out loud what one thinks when the thought police go as far as punishing the correction of a few spelling mistakes! This is unheard-of in all the history of the French language!
Well anyway, if Bishop Tissier has written to others about my condemnation, he has written a letter to me, on 31st December 2013, but I only got the letter on January 27th, because life as a homeless priest doesn’t make corresponding by letter any easier.
...Page 15 (Fr. Pinaud):
Fr. Angles said he was astonished to learn that the Tribunal had recommended him along side Father Puga and Father Laroche as potential lawyers.
“What idiot put my name on this list?” he blurted out, “I cannot be your lawyer because I am legal counsel to Bishop Fellay! And need I tell you, if you are in the Resistance, that’s not my cup of tea, because we really need an agreement, it is necessary, otherwise we are going to end up schismatic. -- Look at Bishop Fellay, he has more power than the Pope! It is unbearable. I have resigned from my post as Superior because I do not want to condone this attitude anymore. Unfortunately an agreement can’t be made under Bishop Fellay, he has completely discredited himself; he cannot say two words without sowing doubt all over the globe.”
.
.
.
So, the only negative consequence, worth mentioning, of +F's being unable to say two words without sowing doubt all over the globe, is, that "unfortunately an agreement can't be made under Bishop Fellay." For we really need an agreement; it is necessary; for otherwise we are going to end up schismatic.
This is the thinking behind the XSPX, and this is why the Society is in a tailspin nosedive. +F is just the tip of the iceberg.
.
-
.
From the bottom of p.16:
All this is good, you will tell me, but the question remains: what can Fr. Pinaud have done to be so severely punished?
One could also wonder, in an affirmative way, “What he did must have been extremely serious to deserve this severe sanction.” That’s true, and that is what makes the trial interesting.
It is one of the reasons which persuaded me not to avoid it. Imagine if I had been punished without trial – like most of my fellow priests – you could really say : “He must have done something very serious for his superior to punish him like this... let us keep our imagination in check... what could have happened at Couloutre?... one can imagine all sorts of things...”
But what is interesting in a trial, is that the accusations become public – on March 7th 2013, Fr. Thouvenot published urbi et orbi a gravely calumniating letter – and everyone can access it... that is the reason for the publication of the acts of the trials in their entirety.
It is impossible to say, as Bishop Fellay said recently to the author of an article summing up this entire affair: “You do not know everything Sir, this trial is only the tip of the iceberg”. No, Bishop Fellay, if you were honest you wouldn’t say such things. Since it is a trial, the sentence must necessarily correspond to the charge and the victim must necessarily have had the possibility to defend himself before knowing the sentence, otherwise the whole trial would only be a dishonest undertaking...
So what did I do? [what had I done to deserve this?]
I confess it without any regret and you can verify it by reading the book:
I corrected a few unforgivable spelling mistakes in a docuмent which was sent to me in private, for private advice.
This docuмent has become and will remain famous, it is worth re-reading it, it can be found in the acts where it figures as a piece of evidence, and it is known as the ‘Letter of the 37'.
.
-
.
It continues:
The March 7th memorandum from Fr. Thouvenot asserts that this open letter to Bishop Fellay contains calumnies, detraction, disparaging remarks and mix-ups.
In his circular about this same docuмent, Fr. de Caqueray used the following terms: “lies”, “attitudes which are not based on anything objective”, “irrational distrust”. It is very easy to talk about lies, attitudes which are based on nothing objective, irrational distrust, mix-ups, detraction, calumnies, and more, but all these terms do not by themselves refute any of the said facts.
I readily believe the three fellow priests who have told me that Fr. de Caqueray regretted these terms which he had employed to compromise with Menzingen, once again. For instance, when I read in this open letter to Bishop Fellay:
“For more than 13 years, Bishop Fellay has authorised a priest not to cite the name of the Pope and the local Bishop in the Canon of the Mass, (this was after the signature of a docuмent by Catholics and Protestants) and he told this priest he understood his choice!”
There is no calumny, no detraction, no mix-up. This is no lie. I know this priest and he is currently member of the SSPX.
After that, the accusations of sedevacantism which are meant to be disqualifying seem to me uncalled for.
As for the letter itself: I was in no way the inspiration behind it. And despite what the Penal Decree signed by Bishop Fellay says, I didn’t write it, I didn’t circulate it, and I can add that I would never have written it or circulated it if its author hadn’t done so. But I do admit that I did correct a few unforgivable spelling mistakes... which my judges learnt about through the theft of my private correspondence with Fr. Rioult.
My suspension a divinis therefore punishes the correction of a few spelling mistakes...
When I think that in school I always lost marks for leaving spelling mistakes in my work, and now I am being punished for correcting them... it shouldn’t be said that nothing ever changes, on the contrary, everything changes!
That is the reason for my exile in Jaidhof, my eight-month detention and for this sentence... they could only reproach me with the correction of a few spelling mistakes... and on the basis of stolen correspondence..
.
.
.
In school, I always lost marks
for leaving spelling mistakes in my work,
and now I am being punished
for correcting them.
They could only reproach me with
the correction of a few spelling mistakes...
and on the basis of stolen correspondence.
.
-
.
From the bottom of p.18:
My defence gave me the opportunity to express this very clearly, I think, but also, unfortunately, to aggravate my case to such a point that I became worthy of the death penalty:
Here is the true motive for my punishment:
No 6 – Furthermore, Father Pinaud has shown no regret about the whole thing; on the contrary, he continues to formulate critiques against his Superiors; in his last defence he went as far as saying: “Because of the numerous concessions made to the Council and unacceptable conciliar reforms, the doctrinal declaration of April 15th 2012, by itself, constitutes a peril for the faith which legitimates this revolt, because this Doctrinal Declaration is not a “minimalist” text, as Bishop Fellay wrote in the editorial of Cor Unum No 102.”
That’s the mortal sin – not the correction of a few spelling mistakes in that ‘Letter of the 37’ – Father Wuilloud hasn’t actually shown much regard for spelling in his letters – but on the contrary, rejecting the recognition of the legitimacy of the New Mass, that comes with a high price.
I have no regrets, for my trial gave me the opportunity to publicly pose these questions:
~ Your Excellency, do you maintain your acceptance of the new Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity to assume a new charge within the Church? (DD II note 1)
~ Your Excellency, do you maintain that the new mass and the new sacraments were legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II? (DD III, §7)
~ Your Excellency, do you maintain that Archbishop Lefebvre accepted in 1988 the “legitimacy or the legality of the Novus Ordo Missae”? (your presentation note of the Doctrinal Declaration published in Cor Unum No 104)
~ Your Excellency, do you maintain your acceptation of the new Code of 1983? (DD III, §8)
To this day, only one response has been given to me: a suspension a divinis! Bishop Tissier wrote to me:
“If the first pages of your defensio were excellent, the rest was unnecessary: you were putting Bishop Fellay on trial, which is outside of your competence as defendant and accused and you made your case worse by attacks you should have absolutely kept out of a tribunal.”
Well, no! Your Most Reverend Excellency Bishop Tissier, I did not spend eight months in Jaidhof and I didn’t voluntarily appear before my judges at Schlieren on 19th October 2013 at 1.30pm to talk about spelling, but to talk seriously about grave matters which have mortally wounded the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X. Even at the price of my life. It was a question of honour.
To pretend or to seek a compromise as Fr. Petrucci encouraged me to do, since he wanted to see this comedy over quickly, was a compromise whose consequences would have been far too heavy for me.
By going from cowardice to cowardice, I realise now, one can become a bandit.
I preferred the punishment and I give thanks to God for that, but I consider this suspension a divinis as an honour – may God give me more fidelity in his service, as it is not only a matter of being faithful today but every day til the end. And only those who are faithful to the end will be saved.
Bishop Williamson chose “Fideles Inveniamur” as his episcopal motto: it is a whole program indeed, to be found faithful!
.
-
.
This long piece covering Fr. Pinaud's kangaroo-court 'trial' is truly the smoking gun of +Fellay's blatant liberalism. As Ed. says in his notably English style:
"Fr. Pinaud’s treatment at the hands of Menzingen is crystal clear proof of just what an unjust tyranny (and, like most tyrannies, an arbitrary and personal one at that) the leadership and governance of the SSPX has become, as well as just how far from Archbishop Lefebvre things have drifted."
As a point of comparison, a local NovusOrdo seminary in Camarillo CA has long been expelling good seminarians for little offenses, such as habitual tardiness, disobedience, improper clothing, having been on record too many times for correction, and "pastoral insensitivity to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs." But the real reasons they're expelled never get on the official record, because they are three in number.
They really get kicked out for 1) having been found praying the Rosary, 2) having been discovered studying Latin, and 3) having been found studying the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass liturgy and prayers.
Similarly, Fr. Pinaud was punished for correcting spelling errors, discovered by stealing his private e-mail by criminal hacking of his private e-mail account. But the REAL reason he was punished is not on the record, and that is, he does not tow the Menzingen line that the Newmass was legitimately promulgated, or that Vat.II is not all that bad, or the Newcode of Canon Law is somehow acceptable.
That kind of thing is unforgivable. It is the rejection of the unclean spirit of Vatican II. It will not be forgiven in this Society or the next (the one that comes after the Agreement).
.
-
:applause: :applause: :applause::
Lent is long... We needed a respite, thanks!! :)
You are most welcome, hugeman. The pleasure is mine.
BTW: I was correct in this too, (and others were wrong) that the following exchange between +F and Cardinal Canizares would be a part of Issue #15, for it is referenced on page 6.
.
If you take a few minutes to work with what you've got, there is plenty to do even without the issue #15 in your mailbox, yet.................................
It helped me to make that previous post, because putting it all together in one place like that, it becomes more obvious that the "official clarification" of +F doesn't mention anything about what Cardinal Canizares was talking about, even though +F was claiming to provide the "context" of his words and "what he actually said."
There are several things that now fairly jump off the page:
1) If the Cardinal had been under the impression that there was any such context, he would likely have made some mention of that, but he did not. He gave not a single hint of any such 'context' at all.
2) The so-called context proffered by +F does not even make sense in regards to the statement of the Cardinal. See Below.
3) What +F provides in his so-called clarification talks about a different topic for 4/5 of the words, and then suddenly at the end he jumps to a side issue regarding the seminarians that only vaguely perhaps possibly is in the remotely distant similar topic, but not really. See Below.
4) If what +F provides as a clarification were really what he had said to the Cardinal, the Cardinal probably would not have given him the time of day, because that is not anything the Cardinal would have wanted to hear. Therefore, it is neither the context nor the actual words that +F had used, even if it were what he had in mind at the time, which I highly doubt was the case.
Had +F said these things when he had met with the Cardinal, it would have been like this (the bold text copies direct quotes from +F's so-called clarification):
Cardinal Canizares (CC):
Hello, Bishop Fellay, it's nice to see you today! Welcome! Come right in to my office!
+Fellay:
Thank, you, your Eminence! It's great to be here.
CC:
So, what do you have for me today, some good news?
+F:
Oh, I have great news. Here are a few things I've had on my mind for a long time and I thought you would do well in knowing about it. Firstly, I have to provide some context. The abuses in the liturgy have caused a major reaction amongst us. This is still the case today, in the sense that the abuses and sacrileges in the sacred liturgy have helped the faithful and even priests to quickly and more fully understand the profound defects and danger of the Novus Ordo - because there is a link between the New Mass and the abuses. The abuses have helped to prove that our position is the right one: that is, the New Mass is not good in itself.
CC:
Wait a minute. I thought you said there was some good news. Do you recall who I am or where you are? This is my office. I am Cardinal Canizares. Are you losing your grip on reality, Bishop Fellay?
+F:
Please, forgive me, you Eminence! I was just trying to provide some context so that later on, like next year or the year after, I can give my eager audience some snippets of some tough talk that we exchanged today. It's all for internal management, you see.
CC:
Oh, I guess then it's not what I thought it was. All right then, proceed. Get on to the good news, now, would you, please?
+F:
All right, then. This having been said, from the beginning and before the abuses took place, Archbishop Lefebvre had already refused to celebrate the Novus Ordo Missae. Because the serious omissions and the whole [conciliar] reform, done in an ecuмenical spirit, gives it a Protestant savor.
CC:
Now just one minute here. You just told me again that you have some GOOD NEWS for me, and here you go saying that the ORDINARY ROMAN RITE of MASS has a quote, "protestant savor?" Are you and I from the same PLANET, Bishop Fellay? Protestant Savor, does it? Are you saying I am a protestant, your Excellency?
+F:
Oh, no, Your Eminence. I wasn't saying that at all. It's just that the New Mass puts at risk the Catholic Faith, and the numerous examples of faithful and priests who have lost the Faith directly linked with the celebration of the Novus Ordo, are quite blatant.
CC:
That's it. I'm calling security. You are flat-out nuts, man. You're off your rocker. I can't afford the insurance premiums I'd have to pay letting you stand here and spout your insanity like this. Here they are. Officer, conduct this man to the front door and bid him farewell, because he is a threat to our security here.
+F:
But Your Eminenece! You haven't heard the best part yet! Nevertheless, for a while - and until these new damaging effects were clearly recognized - Archbishop Lefebvre did not strictly prohibit attendance at the New Mass.
CC:
That's right, show him the front door! (Armed secrurity guards have +F by each elbow and are pulling him down the hallway as +F shouts over his shoulder toward the office of Cardinal Canizares.)
+F:
It was only after a few years that he prohibited the seminarians from going to the New Mass while on their holiday’s va-a-a-ca-a-a-a-tio-o-o-o-o-ns! (+F's voice fades away as Security turns the corner toward the front door.)
Now, according to this version of +Fellay's, where does the Cardinal arrive at his own version which says the following? (As reported by Rome Reports on January 16, 2013 in an article entitled, “Cardinal Canizares: The most urgent reform is liturgical formation”):
Cardinal Antonio Canizares, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, stated to the press on January 15th:
On one occasion, Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, “We just came from an abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did”… The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form.
Maybe I'm not quite imaginative to do it, but try as I may, I cannot find any place in +F's so-called clarification where this version of Cardinal Canizares can fit -- AT ALL.
Anyone else who would like to give it a shot ----- BE MY GUEST!!
.
On p.6, after this:
“The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form,” the
cardinal added.
TheRecusant provides the Web link:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-if-lefebrve-had-seen-proper-mass-he-may-not-have-split/
.
-
.
REGARDING THAT FICTITIOUS CONVERSATION RELATED
IN THE POST ABOVE THIS ONE, HERE IS THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Since it so often happens that linked articles like this later disappear from the whole Internet, as if they had been drop-kicked into the Memory Hole (cf. 1984), I'm copying the whole thing here for future reference:
Source (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-if-lefebrve-had-seen-proper-mass-he-may-not-have-split/)
Cardinal: If Lefebvre had seen proper Mass, he may not have split
(http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/size340/Cardinal_Antonio_Caizares_Llovera_Prefect_of_the_Congregation_for_Divine_Worship_Credit_Marta_Jimnez_Ibez_CNA_2_CNA_Vatican_Catholic_News_1_17_13.jpg)
Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation
for Divine Worship. Credit: Marta Jiménez Ibáñez/CNA.
Rome, Italy, Jan 18, 2013 / 01:09 pm (CNA). - According to a Spanish cardinal, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X once said that if the group's leader had seen the Mass celebrated properly, he may not have broken off from the Church.
Cardinal Antonio Canizares, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, made this statement on Jan. 15 in response to questions from reporters after he delivered an address on Vatican II at the Spanish Embassy to the Holy See.
“On one occasion,” Cardinal Canizares recalled, “Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, ‘We just came from an abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did.’”
“The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form,” the cardinal added.
The Paul VI Missal contains the ordinary form of the Mass promulgated after the Second Vatican Council and is one of the points of contention that led to the schism with the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.
The Lefebvrists have insisted on continuing to celebrate the Mass according to the missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII in 1962.
Cardinal Canizares later spoke with a reduced number of reporters and further amplified his remarks about the Lefebrvists and the Paul VI Missal.
He elaborated on the idea that if the schismatic archbishop had seen the new Mass celebrated properly and reverently, he may not have rejected it.
“Even the followers of the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, when they participate in a Mass that is properly celebrated, say, ‘If things were this way everywhere there would have been no need for what happened’ and for what really caused this separation,” he said.
The cardinal went on to explain that Vatican II offered more than simply changes.
“If offers a vision of the liturgy in continuity with the entire Tradition of the Church and the theological reflection it makes about the liturgy,” he said. “The changes are a consequence of this theological reflection within ecclesial Tradition.”
To show that the liturgy should not be a cause for division, Pope Benedict XVI published the Motu Propio “Summorum Pontificuм” in 2007 to establish universal use of the 1962 missal.
The Holy Father has taken several other steps towards reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X.
On Jan. 21, 2009, he lifted the excommunications imposed on the four bishops ordained by Lefebfvre in 1988, including Bernard Fellay.
In doing so, however, he stressed that they should give “full recognition to the Second Vatican Council,” as well as to the magisteriums of the popes after Pius XII as a condition for full communion.
In addition, Pope Benedict XVI gave the society the chance to end the schism in 2011 by accepting a doctrinal preamble.
In 2012, the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” charged with the ongoing dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X, announced that the society had requested “addition time for reflection and study” of the proposed preamble.
Tags: Society of St. Pius X
.
.
.
How many objective errors can you find? I count 11.
They're all made by the reporter or the typist. None of them are made by Cardinal Cañizares. I find that encouraging.
The Cardinal does not suffer from ignorance of the situation or in confusion over Church teachings, apparently. But those who produced the article do. And of course, so do +Fellay and his henchmen. IOW, +F and the Menzingen-denizens have more in common with the ignorant reporter and typist than they do with a Newchurch Cardinal. That, I find rather scary.
.
-
.
Page 6 goes on (this "official clarification" is the basis for my fictional dialogue, above):
You may remember also that Menzingen immediately rushed out an “official clarification” from on high. We little layfolk should be so grateful to Menzingen for constantly “clarifying” things for us. Otherwise, who knows what mistaken impressions we might come away with? That Bishop Fellay is more liberal in private than in public, for example? So far there has been no “official clarification” about this latest claim from a Novus Ordo bishop. Perhaps Menzingen are worried about us getting “clarification-fatigue”? Or perhaps they are hoping nobody will notice and the story can be quietly brushed under the carpet? Either way, one might reasonably wonder at Bishop Fellay’s very uncanny and highly unfortunate knack of leaving people with the wrong impression about what he really thinks and where he really stands...!
“As very often,” said Bishop Fellay in his clarification, “a phrase was interpreted badly.”
Quite. As very often.
[In America, we would say, "Seriously! As very often happens." But the British say, "Quite. As very often." I find that amusing and charming. As they say in French, "Vive la différence!"]
.
-
.
Fr. Altamira mentions the exchange between +F and Cardinal Cañizares in his Reply, on page 30 of Issue #15:
On this point, the impertinence of Bishop Fellay, yourself, was very explicit: the modern mass (and all the modern sacraments) are valid if they are celebrated “with the intention of doing what the Church does” (ut supra), and have been “LEGITIMATELY PROMULGATED” (your declaration of April 2012 ut supra). And the incredible lack of respect towards Archbishop Lefebvre when you said to Cardinal Cañizares that if he [Archbishop Lefebvre] had seen modern mass celebrated properly, “he wouldn’t have taken the step he took”.
Is that saying that this whole fight of Archbishop Lefebvre against the modern mass was bad, was exaggerated?
Is that saying that the only problem is one of excesses committed by some when they celebrate it?
Is that saying that we can attend modern masses when whoever celebrates it is a conservative, such as in the monastery where you saw it celebrated by a priest – for instance – of the Opus Dei?
All this is incredible! And it is quite scandalous.
And no one, no one of those who govern us is saying anything! No one says anything publicly. I am thinking, with some hope still, of one of our Bishops.
.
.
.
One of our Bishops, indeed. For it is the calling and the duty of the bishops to stand up and to speak out. The fact that they have been cowed into submission says a lot.
.
-
.
From p.34:
There had been no English language website of the Franciscan Third Order in the USA, although there was one run by a tertiary in Canada, an enterprising gentleman who was already known to be on the side of the Resistance. Earlier in 2012, this website
had been praised by Fr. Emily as containing much valuable information and he recommended Franciscan tertiaries to visit it and make use of it.
In December 2012, however, Fr. Emily suddenly changed his tune. He wrote warning Third Order Franciscans to have nothing to do with the same website he had been recommending only a couple of months previously.
Why the sudden change? Had the website been altered in any way? Not at all. All that had happened was that it had come to Fr. Emily’s attention that the man who had created the website, the TOSF Prefect in Toronto, Canada, supported the resistance.
Although, as Fr. Emily was forced to admit, the website was “not [being used] to attack Bishop Fellay or our Society” (i.e. it contained no information about the Resistance and was not partisan in any way), and that on the contrary, it did contain a lot of very good and useful things, yet the fact that it was run by a man who disagreed with the new line of Menzingen was enough to justify using his position of trust to attack its owner who dared to disagree with the party line.
.
.
.
At this point, I'd like to recall that at the time, in December of 2012, Fr. Emily was running a retreat at Los Gatos, in which he promoted the book of Blessed Anne de Guigné, and the reason he did so, was to encourage the retreatants to contemplate the heroic virtue of this little French girl who had IMMEDIATELY assented to God's will, the moment she had realized that it was truly God's will.
As admirable as this lesson is, in retrospect, what he was asking of the retreatants was to imitate Bl. Anne by never questioning the dictates of Menzingen. His message was, that unquestioning obedience is so pleasing to God, that it outweighs all other concerns. (He did not use those words, but this was without question the message that he endeavored to impress upon the retreatants.)
But, one might ask, what about one's concern for the Faith?
As I recall, no one asked him that question.
.
-
.
From p.42:
France: In an official announcement which appeared on
the SSPX French district website, http://LaPorteLatine.org ,
Fr. de Caqueray has announced that this summer he will
be replaced as District Superior of France by none other
than...
...Fr. Christian “The
-
Jєωs
-
did
-
not
-
commit
-
Deicide” Bouchacourt, the current district
superior of South America!
Where Fr. de Caqueray will be moved to remains unclear.
.
.
.
Let's see: South Africa is already newly occupied by Fr. Scott.
Asia is a possibility seeing how Fr. Couture has run rampant there,
breaking, entering and pillaging. But he would have to face Fr. Chazal.
Those two might team up or something. Perhaps India, well, no,
he'd suppress the Flying Squirrel -- can't have that.
Japan and Korea aren't big enough. And Australia would be at
risk with the cozy rel's with Bishop Peter J. Elliot and +F (http://www.sacrificium.org/article/when-two-bishops-agree-hang-something-02-march-2014).
Don't want to rock the boat. Hmm....... Les'see here......
Out of France and into Russia? Naaah -- too close.
How about Madagascar or East Timor? Diego Garcia? (Too small,
and besides, Phillip Wood and all aren't Trads.)
I've got it: Oceania! That would be New Zealand, Fiji, Hawaii,
Easter and Pitcairn Is. The commute should keep him busy.
I.e., his new assignment isn't being mentioned because the options
are getting really slim lately. He'd be leaving France because
France is getting out of hand. Can't have that! Put a real Lib in there,
like that guy who's chummy with the Yids. Anything! This is an
emergency! We'll worry about where to send him later. Maybe
someone on a blog somewhere will come up with a good idea.
.
-
TheRecusant[/url]]
What a lot of fuss.
Sean Johnson, I apologise that we are a little late getting the March/April issue out. It is late because we're not Angelus Press, we don't charge people, we don't make lots of money (we don't make any money!), I don't draw a nice handsome editors salary (in fact I don't get any salary, not a single penny), and in the meantime real life occasionally gets in the way. It's free because it's a work offered to Almighty God, not a business.
I'll take this thread as a compliment, however. It's nice to have one's efforts appreciated now and then.
And now, if you don't mind, I haven't really time for much more discussion, interesting though it no doubt would be.
Since Ed. takes this thread as a compliment, and that is certainly my motive in all my perhaps questionable energy that seems to have been recognized by almost Nobody else, :tinfoil: ...
I have another observation to make regarding one item in Issue #15. And I know, I know, there will be someone (or perhaps Nobody :judge: ) who doesn't appreciate this.
From p.42:
Drop in SSPX vocations? Winona (USA) - only ten new entrants received the cassock at the SSPX’s US seminary this year, the lowest number of new entrants into Winona for as long as anyone can remember - as far back as at least the mid-1980s! If this is the start of a new downward trend in SSPX vocations, it will be just in time for the completion of the new $50million (or was it $80million?) mega-seminary currently under construction in Virginia...
I have some inside information in regards to this. There is a REASON that enrollments are DOWN, and it has nothing to do with the number of VOCATIONS.
The reason that there are fewer seminarians at Winona this year is the following: when young men from far and wide arrive who are NOT from SSPX schools and/or parishes, but rather are from independent chapels or homeshcooled Catholic families, the other students are encouraged by the professors (Fr. Themann is not exempt from among them) to, as it were, use these somehow 'less fortunate' applicants as :boxer: punching bags. :argue:
By repeatedly treating them as lower-class material and 'damaged goods', their enthusiasm is depleted, and their zeal is taxed, to the point where they literally come away saying the following.
And no, I am not "making this up."
They say, in many cases (although not all), "If it comes down to a choice between the SSPX seminary or else no ordination, I'd prefer the latter."
How does this fare for having new priests in formation? The one thing that is difficult to measure is, how do the professors assess the individual candidates' proclivity toward the prospect of making a 'deal' with modernist Rome?
(Perhaps you prefer "accord" or "normalization" or "practical agreement.")
I have a very hard time expecting that they do NOT sit each seminarian down, perhaps even from time to time, and ask a series of questions, the point of which is to assess his opinion on the prospect of such "accord" or "practical agreement" sometime in the future, and that they may look very carefully at the candidate's IMMEDIATE REACTION to the idea.
Alternatively, they might rely on some prior recommendation from a youth group, such as the summer program at any of the retreat centers, for reports from the rectors there, regarding whether a particular seminarian showed any signs of 'resistance' to the PRINCIPLE of some future 'accord with Rome'.
.
-
.
From p.34:
There had been no English language website of the Franciscan Third Order in the USA, although there was one run by a tertiary in Canada, an enterprising gentleman who was already known to be on the side of the Resistance. Earlier in 2012, this website
had been praised by Fr. Emily as containing much valuable information and he recommended Franciscan tertiaries to visit it and make use of it.
In December 2012, however, Fr. Emily suddenly changed his tune. He wrote warning Third Order Franciscans to have nothing to do with the same website he had been recommending only a couple of months previously.
Why the sudden change? Had the website been altered in any way? Not at all. All that had happened was that it had come to Fr. Emily’s attention that the man who had created the website, the TOSF Prefect in Toronto, Canada, supported the resistance.
Although, as Fr. Emily was forced to admit, the website was “not [being used] to attack Bishop Fellay or our Society” (i.e. it contained no information about the Resistance and was not partisan in any way), and that on the contrary, it did contain a lot of very good and useful things, yet the fact that it was run by a man who disagreed with the new line of Menzingen was enough to justify using his position of trust to attack its owner who dared to disagree with the party line.
.
.
.
At this point, I'd like to recall that at the time, in December of 2012, Fr. Emily was running a retreat at Los Gatos, in which he promoted the book of Blessed Anne de Guigné, and the reason he did so, was to encourage the retreatants to contemplate the heroic virtue of this little French girl who had IMMEDIATELY assented to God's will, the moment she had realized that it was truly God's will.
As admirable as this lesson is, in retrospect, what he was asking of the retreatants was to imitate Bl. Anne by never questioning the dictates of Menzingen. His message was, that unquestioning obedience is so pleasing to God, that it outweighs all other concerns. (He did not use those words, but this was without question the message that he endeavored to impress upon the retreatants.)
But, one might ask, what about one's concern for the Faith?
As I recall, no one asked him that question.
.
There is more on this (from p.36-7):
The Resistance: “People of Such Bad Faith!”
It is when we get to Fr. Emily’s most recent Third Order newsletter, however, that a real can of worms opens up. He dedicates this newsletter to the topic of - you’ve guessed it! - the Resistance! And more specifically, to telling his readers what a thoroughly bad lot we all are, not least the aforementioned Canadian gentleman, whom (for the unpardonable crime of sending around a two-line long email to some fellow Third Order members) he does not shrink from attacking by name!
“Of course, Mr. La Rosa continues to spread his venom of division among our members, like the enemy who sowed cockle in the fields of the Lord ... He goes so far as to ask for prayers that our dear Capuchin Fathers may join the Resistance... These words of Mr La Rosa clearly reveal his spirit of dividing the family of our Third Order. His spirit of division is obviously opposed to the spirit of St. Francis which is a spirit of peace, charity and union among brothers.” (TOSF newsletter No 9, Feb. 2014)
Need we comment on this? Besides the embarrassingly condescending tone and the simplistic ‘See Spot Run’ arguments, which appear to assume that his readers have all the maturity and wisdom of a six-year-old child (“Look at him! He’s causing division! He says bad things! He’s bad! St. Francis wouldn’t like him!”), please bear the above-quoted extract in mind when you read what else he says in the same letter, and see if you can spot the gigantic dose of hypocrisy!
The embarrassingly condescending tone
and the simplistic ‘See Spot Run’ arguments,
which appear to assume that his readers
have all the maturity and wisdom of a six-year-old child
(“Look at him! He’s causing division!
He says bad things! He’s bad!
St. Francis wouldn’t like him!”)
After he has finished talking about one (named) individual spreading “venom” and being like the “enemy who sowed cockle,” Fr. Emily moves on to talking about the Resistance as a whole.
“The Resistance,” complains Fr. Emily, is: “...pitifully launching deplorable, personal attacks against our Superiors and our Society ...we do not want to judge their intentions ... people of such bad faith!” (Ibid.)
As someone else recently remarked: obviously it is hypothetically possible for someone to spread false information innocently. But no one can innocently be in bad faith! Thus, Fr. Emily himself here judges not only our actions but also our persons. And as Fr. Emily himself says, in the same letter:
“As long as we see our opponents [making] personal attacks... our choice between the two parties is simple.” (Ibid.)
Like his Superiors, Fr. Emily is very quick to accuse his opponents of making ‘personal attacks’. Yet when one compares any number of articles by the Resistance about the neo-SSPX with articles by the neo-SSPX about the Resistance, the one thing that stands out a mile is precisely that our side does not make gratuitous personal attacks, whereas they do!
Why would we seek to attack persons; in what way would that further our cause?
We are not concerned with the person, but with words, ideas, actions, teachings, doctrine.
If Fr. Emily had not decided to talk such a lot of nonsense and to tar us all with such an unworthy brush, had he not provided us all with such a very clear example of the way in which the Menzingen Propaganda Machine works, it is very unlikely that he would have found his name gracing the pages of this newsletter!
It is not so much him as his crusade against the Resistance that is at issue. The reader can re-read this article and look for any ’personal attack’ against him which is not in reality a disputing of his specific words which he has written and published.
In a similar vein, readers of The Recusant will recall occasions (Burghclere, to name the last such) where Bp. Fellay himself has complained about being misquoted, misrepresented, or ‘personally attacked’, but he never gives his audience the benefit of even one example. Here, Fr. Emily likewise gives not one single example of a “deplorable” personal attack, except in the sense that his whole letter is one big example of it, albeit not in the sense he intended it!
.
-
The multi-million dollar brand cannot be wasted on any seminary candidate! It is like geting into Oxbridge where either (big) money talks, one emerges from establishment families or one assembles copious references from 'respected' contemporary academics with whom one tries to ingratiate. Otherwise, smart candidates think of some very obsure subject to study where there is still some funding available and few takers.
The new Virginian curriculum will be very Rome-friendly. Any spirit of resistance or sign of sedevacantism will be a black mark, even being too concerned with the ideas of ABL instead of the spirit of Joseph Ratzinger. Students must be smart if they want a good career ahead of them; they have to study the trend. They will be drawn from the more progressive parishes and schools within the SSPX world and will have already conformed to the right model.
-
.
I just spent an hour typing a reply to this and my system glitched and deleted the whole thing. I did not keep a copy this time (usually I do). So maybe I'll replay again later, and maybe I won't.
.
Dear Nobody,
You are making no sense here.
Neil Obstat,
Why are you treating SeanJohnson like that ?
Like what?
You sound so hot headed and full of bitter zeal.
I'm sorry I must have missed that. Can you provide one example, or two?
And you are wrong too. On this thread, you made at least one false accusation against SeanJohnson
So I'm wrong, am I? I made two typos and I corrected them. Are you referring to something else? If so, it would be informative for you to identify it so I can have some clue what in the world you're talking about.
and your posts came across as very proud and insulting.
And yours don't? You're proudly insulting me with no evidence, and what, that's okay?
I don't care on which side of the fence you are,
What "fence" are you dreaming up now? Does it have a name?
but I wish you were not part of the Resistance. I'd be ashamed of associating with you.
What is the Resistance, anyway? Do you have a definition? Are you telling me I should not be Catholic, or, are you saying I should not use any logic, to be more like you, for example?
Did you notice that SeanJohnson did NOT return the insults and bitterness ?
Do you need a list of those as well?
If you have not charity, you have NOTHING !
I come here to stay informed and occasionally engage in a respectful and objective discussion, not to be witness to someone ranting and raving about trivialities !
Gosh, I wish I could understand what you're specifically accusing me of.
Should I make a list? Because I doubt you could make one.
He repeatedly questioned that there would be any more issues, and demanded someone to prove him wrong. That's like saying, can you prove you have stopped beating you wife? Or can you prove that they will not build a bridge over this river? Now that we have confirmation that the new Issue #15 is in process, and SeanJohnson was wrong, and I was right, you're defending his insolence and suspicions? And that's what you think means charity?
I called him on it and he went nuts. Is that my fault? We even had a post from another member testifying to the copies being in process, but he wouldn't believe that -- not convincing enough for him. So what's the big deal?
What false accusation did I make, anyway? Can you name it, or are you just happy with blanket statements like that?
What bitterness are you referring to? Is fact and logic foreign to your thinking?
Sometimes logic can seem rough, but that's usually when you're on the erroneous side of the dividing line. It seems to me you're pretty confused as to what charity means.
.
Dear Neil Obstat, here we go :
You've accused SeanJohnson of '..presuming..', '..lying..', '..half-cocked with a hot head and a short fuse..', '..you don't trust me..', '..non-thinking drivel from a mind full of mush..', '..reading the same fiction in the afternoon that +Fellay is..', ..but then you'd have to t-h-i-n-k..', '..making a spectacle of himself by proving how big his mouth is..', '..pathetic Johnson-person suffers from a malady..', nit picking on 'publication vs edition', 'anywhere on the internet'.. Is that enough proof for you that your posts sound uncharitable, hot headed and bitter ?
Regarding your false accusation : you said SeanJohnson in his OP was presuming that there would be no more issues of the Recusant. The only thing I read in that OP was a question, not a presumption.
Can you now list the insults that SeanJohnson threw at you in this thread, and which according to you justify an 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' ?
Can you also tell me which part of my first post you found insulting, or illogic ?
It takes more to be Catholic than getting facts right, you also have to act in all patience and charity.
I have been looking forward myself to the next edition (or publication/issue/..) of the Recusant, and I have wondered myself whether there would be another one. Is that a crime ? That was the OP of SeanJohnson. You could have just replied like this :
I have seen the hard copy, hopefully the electronic copy will be put up soon.
.
Dear Nobody,
You are making no sense here.
Neil Obstat,
Why are you treating SeanJohnson like that ?
Like what?
You sound so hot headed and full of bitter zeal.
I'm sorry I must have missed that. Can you provide one example, or two?
And you are wrong too. On this thread, you made at least one false accusation against SeanJohnson
So I'm wrong, am I? I made two typos and I corrected them. Are you referring to something else? If so, it would be informative for you to identify it so I can have some clue what in the world you're talking about.
and your posts came across as very proud and insulting.
And yours don't? You're proudly insulting me with no evidence, and what, that's okay?
I don't care on which side of the fence you are,
What "fence" are you dreaming up now? Does it have a name?
but I wish you were not part of the Resistance. I'd be ashamed of associating with you.
What is the Resistance, anyway? Do you have a definition? Are you telling me I should not be Catholic, or, are you saying I should not use any logic, to be more like you, for example?
Did you notice that SeanJohnson did NOT return the insults and bitterness ?
Do you need a list of those as well?
If you have not charity, you have NOTHING !
I come here to stay informed and occasionally engage in a respectful and objective discussion, not to be witness to someone ranting and raving about trivialities !
Gosh, I wish I could understand what you're specifically accusing me of.
Should I make a list? Because I doubt you could make one.
He repeatedly questioned that there would be any more issues, and demanded someone to prove him wrong. That's like saying, can you prove you have stopped beating you wife? Or can you prove that they will not build a bridge over this river? Now that we have confirmation that the new Issue #15 is in process, and SeanJohnson was wrong, and I was right, you're defending his insolence and suspicions? And that's what you think means charity?
I called him on it and he went nuts. Is that my fault? We even had a post from another member testifying to the copies being in process, but he wouldn't believe that -- not convincing enough for him. So what's the big deal?
What false accusation did I make, anyway? Can you name it, or are you just happy with blanket statements like that?
What bitterness are you referring to? Is fact and logic foreign to your thinking?
Sometimes logic can seem rough, but that's usually when you're on the erroneous side of the dividing line. It seems to me you're pretty confused as to what charity means.
.
Dear Neil Obstat, here we go :
You've accused SeanJohnson of '..presuming..', '..lying..', '..half-cocked with a hot head and a short fuse..', '..you don't trust me..', '..non-thinking drivel from a mind full of mush..', '..reading the same fiction in the afternoon that +Fellay is..', ..but then you'd have to t-h-i-n-k..', '..making a spectacle of himself by proving how big his mouth is..', '..pathetic Johnson-person suffers from a malady..', nit picking on 'publication vs edition', 'anywhere on the internet'.. Is that enough proof for you that your posts sound uncharitable, hot headed and bitter ?
Regarding your false accusation : you said SeanJohnson in his OP was presuming that there would be no more issues of the Recusant. The only thing I read in that OP was a question, not a presumption.
Can you now list the insults that SeanJohnson threw at you in this thread, and which according to you justify an 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' ?
Can you also tell me which part of my first post you found insulting, or illogic ?
It takes more to be Catholic than getting facts right, you also have to act in all patience and charity.
I have been looking forward myself to the next edition (or publication/issue/..) of the Recusant, and I have wondered myself whether there would be another one. Is that a crime ? That was the OP of SeanJohnson. You could have just replied like this :
I have seen the hard copy, hopefully the electronic copy will be put up soon.
-
.
At this point, I'd like to recall that at the time, in December of 2012, Fr. Emily was running a retreat at Los Gatos, in which he promoted the book of Blessed Anne de Guigné, and the reason he did so, was to encourage the retreatants to contemplate the heroic virtue of this little French girl who had IMMEDIATELY assented to God's will, the moment she had realized that it was truly God's will.
As admirable as this lesson is, in retrospect, what he was asking of the retreatants was to imitate Bl. Anne by never questioning the dictates of Menzingen. His message was, that unquestioning obedience is so pleasing to God, that it outweighs all other concerns. (He did not use those words, but this was without question the message that he endeavored to impress upon the retreatants.)
But, one might ask, what about one's concern for the Faith?
As I recall, no one asked him that question.
.
Interesting that the above quote has since been removed from the article. No doubt because the last line identifies the author; written in the third person.
-
"Saying that “there is no accord [i.e. agreement] and there will be no accord” does not preclude “wanting an accord”. Indeed, in many of Bishop Fellay’s talks, he says more or less that: that he himself would be willing to make an agreement, were it only possible"
I would hope so! As has already been discussed in other threads, to not want an agreement as a matter of principle, to reject a priori the unity of authority, is to be schismatic. I don't understand how one can read the above quote and not see the 'Resistance' as schismatic.
-
From p.34:
There had been no English language website of the Franciscan Third Order in the USA, although there was one run by a tertiary in Canada, an enterprising gentleman who was already known to be on the side of the Resistance. Earlier in 2012, this website had been praised by Fr. Emily as containing much valuable information and he recommended Franciscan tertiaries to visit it and make use of it.
In December 2012, however, Fr. Emily suddenly changed his tune. He wrote warning Third Order Franciscans to have nothing to do with the same website he had been recommending only a couple of months previously.
Why the sudden change? Had the website been altered in any way? Not at all. All that had happened was that it had come to Fr. Emily’s attention that the man who had created the website, the TOSF Prefect in Toronto, Canada, supported the resistance.
Although, as Fr. Emily was forced to admit, the website was “not [being used] to attack Bishop Fellay or our Society” (i.e. it contained no information about the Resistance and was not partisan in any way), and that on the contrary, it did contain a lot of very good and useful things, yet the fact that it was run by a man who disagreed with the new line of Menzingen was enough to justify using his position of trust to attack its owner who dared to disagree with the party line.
.
.
.
At this point, I'd like to recall that at the time, in December of 2012, Fr. Emily was running a retreat at Los Gatos, in which he promoted the book of Blessed Anne de Guigné, and the reason he did so, was to encourage the retreatants to contemplate the heroic virtue of this little French girl who had IMMEDIATELY assented to God's will, the moment she had realized that it was truly God's will.
As admirable as this lesson is, in retrospect, what he was asking of the retreatants was to imitate Bl. Anne by never questioning the dictates of Menzingen. His message was, that unquestioning obedience is so pleasing to God, that it outweighs all other concerns. (He did not use those words, but this was without question the message that he endeavored to impress upon the retreatants.)
But, one might ask, what about one's concern for the Faith?
As I recall, no one asked him that question.
.
.
.
There is more on this (from pp 36-37):
The Resistance: “People of Such Bad Faith!”
It is when we get to Fr. Emily’s most recent Third Order newsletter, however, that a real can of worms opens up. He dedicates this newsletter to the topic of - you’ve guessed it! - the Resistance! And more specifically, to telling his readers what a thoroughly bad lot we all are, not least the aforementioned Canadian gentleman, whom (for the unpardonable crime of sending around a two-line long email to some fellow Third Order members) he does not shrink from attacking by name!
“Of course, Mr. La Rosa continues to spread his venom of division among our members, like the enemy who sowed cockle in the fields of the Lord ... He goes so far as to ask for prayers that our dear Capuchin Fathers may join the Resistance... These words of Mr La Rosa clearly reveal his spirit of dividing the family of our Third Order. His spirit of division is obviously opposed to the spirit of St. Francis which is a spirit of peace, charity and union among brothers.” (TOSF newsletter No 9, Feb. 2014)
Need we comment on this? Besides the embarrassingly condescending tone and the simplistic ‘See Spot Run’ arguments, which appear to assume that his readers have all the maturity and wisdom of a six-year-old child (“Look at him! He’s causing division! He says bad things! He’s bad! St. Francis wouldn’t like him!”), please bear the above-quoted extract in mind when you read what else he says in the same letter, and see if you can spot the gigantic dose of hypocrisy!
The embarrassingly condescending tone
and the simplistic ‘See Spot Run’ arguments,
which appear to assume that his readers
have all the maturity and wisdom of a six-year-old child
(“Look at him! He’s causing division!
He says bad things! He’s bad!
St. Francis wouldn’t like him!”)
After he has finished talking about one (named) individual spreading “venom” and being like the “enemy who sowed cockle,” Fr. Emily moves on to talking about the Resistance as a whole.
“The Resistance,” complains Fr. Emily, is: “...pitifully launching deplorable, personal attacks against our Superiors and our Society ...we do not want to judge their intentions ... people of such bad faith!” (Ibid.)
As someone else recently remarked: obviously it is hypothetically possible for someone to spread false information innocently. But no one can innocently be in bad faith! Thus, Fr. Emily himself here judges not only our actions but also our persons. And as Fr. Emily himself says, in the same letter:
“As long as we see our opponents [making] personal attacks... our choice between the two parties is simple.” (Ibid.)
Like his Superiors, Fr. Emily is very quick to accuse his opponents of making ‘personal attacks’. Yet when one compares any number of articles by the Resistance about the neo-SSPX with articles by the neo-SSPX about the Resistance, the one thing that stands out a mile is precisely that our side does not make gratuitous personal attacks, whereas they do!
Why would we seek to attack persons; in what way would that further our cause?
We are not concerned with the person, but with words, ideas, actions, teachings, doctrine.
If Fr. Emily had not decided to talk such a lot of nonsense and to tar us all with such an unworthy brush, had he not provided us all with such a very clear example of the way in which the Menzingen Propaganda Machine works, it is very unlikely that he would have found his name gracing the pages of this newsletter!
It is not so much him as his crusade against the Resistance that is at issue. The reader can re-read this article and look for any ’personal attack’ against him which is not in reality a disputing of his specific words which he has written and published.
In a similar vein, readers of The Recusant will recall occasions (Burghclere, to name the last such) where Bp. Fellay himself has complained about being misquoted, misrepresented, or ‘personally attacked’, but he never gives his audience the benefit of even one example. Here, Fr. Emily likewise gives not one single example of a “deplorable” personal attack, except in the sense that his whole letter is one big example of it, albeit not in the sense he intended it!
.
-
...the last line identifies the author; written in the third person.
You're not making sense.
The "last line" is: "...As I recall, no one asked him that question." How does that identify the author?
.
-
I have been looking forward myself to the next edition (or publication/issue/..) of the Recusant, and I have wondered myself whether there would be another one.
If you're really looking forward to the next issue of TheRecusant, maybe you should read a few of the other threads here on CI. You can see advanced peeks at Issue #16 already, that is, for those with eyes to see, unlike the nattering nabobs of negativity who are eager to presume there won't BE any more issues -- you know who I mean, I'm sure.
-
...the last line identifies the author; written in the third person.
You're not making sense.
The "last line" is: "...As I recall, no one asked him that question." How does that identify the author?
.
The author was there and it was a TOSF retreat.
-
...the last line identifies the author; written in the third person.
You're not making sense.
The "last line" is: "...As I recall, no one asked him that question." How does that identify the author?
.
The author was there and it was a TOSF retreat.
If you don't believe the author, then how can you be sure he (or she) is telling the truth? Unless, you don't want to believe the truth, that is. In which case for you to say "the author was there" means you think the author was NOT there.
You're sounding all the more like a Menzingen spy all the time, petwerp.
.
-
.
REGARDING THAT FICTITIOUS CONVERSATION RELATED
IN THE POST ABOVE THIS ONE, HERE IS THE SOURCE ARTICLE
Since it so often happens that linked articles like this later disappear from the whole Internet, as if they had been drop-kicked into the Memory Hole (cf. 1984), I'm copying the whole thing here for future reference:
Source (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-if-lefebrve-had-seen-proper-mass-he-may-not-have-split/)
Cardinal: If Lefebvre had seen proper Mass, he may not have split
(http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&s=attach&id=4921)
Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation
for Divine Worship. Credit: Marta Jiménez Ibáñez/CNA.
Rome, Italy, Jan 18, 2013 / 01:09 pm (CNA). - According to a Spanish cardinal, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X once said that if the group's leader had seen the Mass celebrated properly, he may not have broken off from the Church.
Cardinal Antonio Canizares, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, made this statement on Jan. 15 in response to questions from reporters after he delivered an address on Vatican II at the Spanish Embassy to the Holy See.
“On one occasion,” Cardinal Canizares recalled, “Bishop (Bernard) Fellay, who is the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, came to see me and said, ‘We just came from an abbey that is near Florence. If Archbishop (Marcel) Lefebvre had seen how they celebrated there, he would not have taken the step that he did.’”
“The missal used at that celebration was the Paul VI Missal in its strictest form,” the cardinal added.
The Paul VI Missal contains the ordinary form of the Mass promulgated after the Second Vatican Council and is one of the points of contention that led to the schism with the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.
The Lefebvrists have insisted on continuing to celebrate the Mass according to the missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII in 1962.
Cardinal Canizares later spoke with a reduced number of reporters and further amplified his remarks about the Lefebrvists and the Paul VI Missal.
He elaborated on the idea that if the schismatic archbishop had seen the new Mass celebrated properly and reverently, he may not have rejected it.
“Even the followers of the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, when they participate in a Mass that is properly celebrated, say, ‘If things were this way everywhere there would have been no need for what happened’ and for what really caused this separation,” he said.
The cardinal went on to explain that Vatican II offered more than simply changes.
“If offers a vision of the liturgy in continuity with the entire Tradition of the Church and the theological reflection it makes about the liturgy,” he said. “The changes are a consequence of this theological reflection within ecclesial Tradition.”
To show that the liturgy should not be a cause for division, Pope Benedict XVI published the Motu Propio “Summorum Pontificuм” in 2007 to establish universal use of the 1962 missal.
The Holy Father has taken several other steps towards reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X.
On Jan. 21, 2009, he lifted the excommunications imposed on the four bishops ordained by Lefebfvre in 1988, including Bernard Fellay.
In doing so, however, he stressed that they should give “full recognition to the Second Vatican Council,” as well as to the magisteriums of the popes after Pius XII as a condition for full communion.
In addition, Pope Benedict XVI gave the society the chance to end the schism in 2011 by accepting a doctrinal preamble.
In 2012, the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” charged with the ongoing dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X, announced that the society had requested “addition time for reflection and study” of the proposed preamble.
Tags: Society of St. Pius X
.
.
.
How many objective errors can you find? I count 11.
They're all made by the reporter or the typist. None of them are made by Cardinal Cañizares. I find that encouraging.
The Cardinal does not suffer from ignorance of the situation or in confusion over Church teachings, apparently. But those who produced the article do. And of course, so do +Fellay and his henchmen. IOW, +F and the Menzingen-denizens have more in common with the ignorant reporter and typist than they do with a Newchurch Cardinal. That, I find rather scary.
.
Note: I have uploaded the photo so in case the site shuts down it's still on CI.
Also, I have replaced the first copy, above, in this post with a URL address that
picks up the image from this one, below, on file with CI, so it is no longer
dependent on the source site, unlike the first post is, on page 10, of which this above is otherwise a copy.