FR. MICHEL SIMOULIN: WHO FEARS THE AVESTRUCES? SOURCE (Emphasis with bold and red comments added by NP) (Note from Mr. G - I may have missed highlighting some red font in the brackets, so view source from Non Possumus) to be sure
Do not fear! Accordists have told us many times. The serpent was more cunning than any of the animals ... And the serpent said to the woman: you certainly will not die (Gen 3, 1 and 4).
In essence, Fr. Simoulin claims that the vice of fear should not impede attempts to seek the regularization of the SSPX. Any forecast about possible bad effects of an agreement with apostate Rome is a sin of fear. The brave are thrown into the mouth of the beast, cowards do not dare to that. On the question of marriages, Fr. Simoulin argues that whoever denies the "right" of the modernist Hierarchy to intervene in the marriages of the traditionalist faithful, denies that this Hierarchy has jurisdiction.
But who are the ones who have a disorderly, unfounded and sinful fear in this situation? The accordists, who have repeatedly expressed their fear of incurring schism . The cordists, in fact, are the ones who, in order to get priests and the faithful to support the traitorous agreement, have instilled fear of the schism . Quote of Bishop Fellay: ... "There is a risk of schism , of the establishment of a parallel Church. I have evoked this problem with the Pope himself, Pope Francis, and we both agree ... Here then acts raised, legal acts that are canonical and that are already in place and that in my opinion suppress the possibility of schism. "
Now for Fr, Simoulin:
Le Seignadou - April 2018
"Because we are children of saints and we await that life that God has to give to those who serve him faithfully" (Tobit II, 18). The great Tobias thus expressed his pride of being a descendant of the patriarchs of Israel, and his son evoked the same pride to his wife Sarah: "For we are children of saints, and we can not unite ourselves in the manner of the Gentiles, who do not know God " (Ibid. VIII, 5).
Without any pretension, would not we have the right to proclaim the same? We are children of saints, and our parents are called Claude-François Poullart des Places, Fr. Liberman, Saint Pius X, Fr. Le Floch, and Msgr. Lefebvre ... and we could add to the list of our venerated Fathers a Saint Sunday, Father Calmel, Father Chivré, and why not Mother Hélène and Mother Anne-Marie!
Then, in the name of the saints of whom we are children, we too should be proud of our parents, and be proud of our fidelity to their memory and teachings. Proud and confident in the grace that has allowed us to receive his spirit ... confident because the same grace will ensure our fidelity to his memory and teachings. [The same thought the generality of the Catholics until the Vatican II]
And, to continue in the images that guided our past reflections, I will say again that, if we are not eagles, we are nevertheless his children ... maybe eaglets? And that's why we're not afraid
of ostriches! The eagles, familiar with the heights, are not afraid
! We are not afraid
of being eaten by conciliar ostriches because it is well known that ostriches do not eat eagles! It can happen that they are bad and they argue between them, but most of the time they flee, and it would be really inappropriate for the eagles to hide their heads in the sand! [Pure presumption. There are many examples of "eagles" devoured by "ostriches" and serpent conciliar. The conciliar beast, which - if analogies are concerned - is more like a tyrannosaur than an ostrich, devours anything that is put in front, as proven by the history of this terrible crisis of the Church]
The real question, in fact, is whether we have reasons to be afraid
of the ostrich, fear of
the future, fear
of not holding and falling apart, fear
of being betrayed or led to misfortune or betrayal, fear
of being accomplices of the ostriches ... all absurd and without any foundation! And that's why some are restless! [as if there were not the sad precedent of many traditionalist groups that ended up betrayed, traitors or accomplices of the conciliar beast]
Dom Gérard wrote these wise reflections in "Tomorrow Christianity": "The body needs virtues, we think mainly of those military virtues that are virtues of the soul before being virtues of war, and we would also like them to be religious virtues, to flourish in a religious universe. What are they? Courage, patience, sense of justice, sense of honor, taste for sacrifice . Now, what feeling is seen that dominates so frequently among those who must be the elite of a nation? Fear
of being upset, the fear
of being disowned, the fear
of being alone. A religious of great merit, who died a few years ago, told us: "I had to reach the end of my life to understand the role that fear
plays in the lives of men. (It was RP Calmel)
Against this fear
that oppresses and paralyzes, there is prayer and it is the example of the saints. It also requires a tender and virile love for Jesus Christ, a simple and strong mystic like the land of Palestine where he was born, something of the crucified and the victor that penetrates into the depths of the soul and elevates it, if necessary, to the confines of the earth . "Due to lack of courage, patience, confidence and perhaps humility, some are scared and worried! They fear that the Fraternity will be unfaithful to their parents, that they will not be strong enough, and will allow themselves to be seduced by the conciliar ostriches
... while she has held before them and without them for years, and will continue to do so with or without They ... [Slight presumption ...] I recently read some sad lines about the " next General Chapter that will take place in July 2018, source of great concern ".
I really wonder what are the real objective facts that can cause so much concern! [Amazing blindness]
Some may be tempted by a practical agreement, but I also believe that others are tempted by the break with Rome!
As for me, I am no more than a timid eagle [rather, a perfect ostrich who refuses to see reality] , I am not smart enough to see the dangers where there are none, and I continue to believe and take refuge in the grace of the Fraternity and its superiors, in the trust in the Holy Spirit, who will be able to guide the work of our General Chapter in fidelity to our parents, much better than it could guide those of this Council where it could not be heard because of the cackle of the ostriches! [Note to readers how with that "cackling" and with the sympathetic figure of the ostrich, Fr. Simoulin induces to minimize the evil of the internal enemies of the Church
I also add that I try to remember my catechism which teaches that in the Church there are three powers: that of teaching, that of governing and sanctifying, and that the faulty exercise of one of them does not nullify the possibility of a normal exercise. of the others! [Y?]
It would be good for us to understand each other: when we talk about the conciliar Church, what are we talking about? Not of a new Church, but of promoters of an unfaithful teaching and denatured means of sanctification! And we reject it! But can we say, think, imagine, pretend that the power to govern has become reconciled? That would not make sense! What does this mean when it comes to authority and jurisdiction? [Means that the power to govern is used by the conciliar heretics to destroy the Church, as we see every day] Whatever the intention of its holders, the power to govern the souls as such, in substance, has been seen stained by the errors of the Council? [Does that make that power harmless when it's in the hands of the modernists?]
Have the pope, the bishops, the parish priests lost the authority and power to witness the marriages that take place in their parishes? [Is there no danger for the traditionalists in that? Why did the FSSPX not allow it before? Did the modernists change or did the FSSPX change?] Have they lost the power to delegate this power to the priests of their choice? And for these priests, to accept being delegates is to adhere to the errors of the Council, or even to the new canon law? [The answer is: yes in principle, yes in many cases. We should suggest to this priest that he return to study the principles of collaboration to the evil that are explained in the treatises of moral theology]
There is a confusion here, effect of a univocal spirit that seems very dangerous to me, because refusing to recognize this power as the conciliar errors are rejected, it would be tantamount to denying that the pope and the bishops still possess it! [So now we have to believe that the FSSPX was missing for more than 40 years?]
Unfortunately, it is possible to become sedevacantist without knowing it! [So the FSSPX was sedevacantista without knowing it , until the Vatican-FSSPX agreement on marriages of April 4, 2017?]
Mons. Lefebvre, and all of us with him, question the validity of the sanctions of 1976-1988, but not the legitimacy of the "conciliar" authority that implemented them. [But Monsignor Lefebvre never authorized the celebration of marriages "FSSPX-Novus Ordo" and had established substitution courts for the matrimonial causes of the traditionalist faithful. Have you forgotten about that, Father? What Bishop Lefebvre said in this letter to the Superior General (P. Schmidberger), of 15-I-91; still have some value for you, Father ?: " While the current Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and modernism and that the set of their precisions and the new canon law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to institute substitution authorities, keeping faithfully the Catholic principles of Catholic tradition and canon law is the only means of remaining faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Apostles and to the deposit of the faith transmitted to his successors who remained faithful until Vatican II. " "As for the problem of the commissions, which do to a certain extent substitute the defection of the Roman Congregations led by prelates imbued with the revolutionary principles of the council, it seems to me that we should start very modestly, according to the needs that arise. , and to offer this institution as a service to help priests in their ministry and religious for cases that are difficult to resolve, or for resolutions that demand an episcopal power of substitution. " ( source ) ]
And I never knew that " Bishop Lefebvre had rejected the conciliar jurisdiction with regard to the consecration of the four bishops ." What is this " conciliar jurisdiction "? Has no sense. [Sense: jurisdiction exercised by the conciliar heretics . Easy.]
And in what way accepting the authority and jurisdiction of the bishops would mean that our marriages are celebrated " within the framework of the new code " [Does the Novus Ordo priest who performs the essential consent ceremony is governed by the code? of 1917? Do future marriage trials of the FSSPX faithful, should not be submitted, from 4-4-17, to the official modernist courts, which are governed by the 1983 code?]
, Or that we preach the "theology of the body" " How do some" ralliés "?
The most amazing thing is that always, since the beginning of the Fraternity, we have accepted to celebrate the sacraments in the parishes: baptisms, funerals and even marriages. [One thing is to use a premises that is in the hands of the Novus Ordo clergy, and quite another to hold a joint ceremony with the Novus Ordo clergy or to subject the faithful to the power of the Novus Ordo clergy, as is now the case with marriages in the FSSPX] This would imply that, at least implicitly, we admit the authority of the parish priests or bishops who welcomed us! [The FSSPX has never denied that the official Hierarchy possesses the power of jurisdiction, but it refused to allow that apostate, liberal and modernist Hierarchy to exercise that power over the marriages of the Fraternity's faithful]
The new provisions make this implicit recognition explicit , nothing else! [!] And where is the betrayal? When we admitted the practice, it could not be done without implicitly admitting the principle! It is this same principle that some reject today because their acceptance has become explicit! [One of two possibilities as regards appreciation of this problem by P. Simoulin: either lacks honesty or lacks intelligence]
I would even say that we can not place ourselves under a " conciliar " authority because we are already there, like everyone in the Church, and even more so the Fraternity itself has been under this authority since November 1, 1970! (Unless the " conciliar " authority of Mons. Charriere, [foundation of the SSPX]
is denied or the legitimacy of the act committed against the Fraternity is admitted by the "conciliar" authority of Msgr. Mamie in 1975! FSSPX] But then, where is the logic? [And where is your logic, Father ?: Why do you consider Msgr. Charriere's decision valid and Msgr. Mamie's decision invalid? Why is it invalid? last, if not unjust, and who decides on justice and injustice and h on the validity or nullity of these decisions of the conciliar Hierarchy, since the SSPX itself in virtue of a true state of necessity]
) " Omnis potestas a Deo"
in the Church as in the city. The authority received by the Pope, bishops and parish priests has its source in Jesus Christ. Power, authority, jurisdiction as such are given by God for the government of the Church, and every member of the Church is necessarily subject to this authority, whatever the defects of its holders. If they are unfaithful to their office [thing that happens since Vatican II]
or refuse to recognize their subjects and give them what they legitimately ask and should be given, [idem]
only then what is called the jurisdiction of substitution intervenes, by which the same authority of Jesus Christ entrusted to Peter is used.
In fact, for us, nothing has changed since November 1, 1970, except the attitude of Rome, which finally considers our actions to be legitimate! [And the attitude of the SSPX, which strives to be regularized by apostate Rome without prior conversion of it]
And I am happy that one of our superiors has thought of reminding everyone of the vote that our founder inscribed in Chapter IV of our Statutes , and of the one who never denied: " The Fraternity, in its beginnings, will depend on the bishop of the place that erected it in" pia uniÃ³n "and recognized its statutes, in accordance with the prescriptions of canon law. Therefore, while the Fraternity is of diocesan status, the members who are destined to the priesthood, before their final commitment, must be incardinated in a diocese, unless a special pardon granted by the Sacred Congregation of the religious authorizes them to be incardinated in the Fraternity. When the Fraternity has houses in different dioceses, it will make the necessary procedures to be of pontifical right ". [As we warn , now the FSSPX claims that the traitorous agreement with Rome must be sought " in the name of the virtue of obedience and respect for the law" ]
In fact, what inspires those who reject this power, is the fear that it is the first step to join the conciliar errors, the first step towards a practical agreement that ignores these errors
.... Now, I have scrutinized the words, the writings (but not the secrets of the hearts, that nobody knows!) of our superiors, I do not find any trace of complacency towards the errors of the Council or the acts that are their public and official translation, and I persist in my confidence in his prudence. [Blindness just incredible. Father: read, for example, this selection of scandalous quotes from Bishop Fellay ]
may be legitimate. Who can say that he is not worried about the future? Whether in the world, in the Church or in society, everything deteriorates day by day, and we can fear
everything, even the worst. We can think that we will live terrible hours -and this is certainly not the time to separate and divide us- but ... we have hope and confidence in the grace of God who watches over everything and everything.
Before being our victory, may this grace be our refuge when it invites us to live crucifying situations.
Crux mihi certa salus, Crux est quam semper adore;
Crux Domini mecum, Crux mihi refugium.