Author Topic: Why the resistance will fail (Read 10333 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #45 on:** February 12, 2014, 06:48:28 AM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Tiffany
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.

We should be supporting them conditionally.

Admittedly, I only know one of the seminarians and at that I could hardly venture to say that I know him, only that I know who he is nominally and a detail or two. As concerns the others, I haven't he slightest clue of even their name, much less their background, personality, disposition, etc.

Anyways, the priesthood is a sacred office and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's not like joining a t-ball team where we should cheer and encourage the boys by the very fact of their undertaking.

Aren't one or two of these men former seminarians from Winona who were "let go" during the rectorship of +Williamson? If so, that might explain his attitude.

Can anyone deny or confirm this proposition? It does sound logical as the Bishop seemed to have particular knowledge of them.
If it be true, then those who would re-admit the men in question will have from the first, compromised their seminary and the priesthood.

Ekim · « **Reply #46 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:13:30 AM »

What does Bishop Williamson's acceptance or rejection have to do with it? Have you ever interviewed for a job and been turn down by the executive who interviewed you, perhaps a very well respected person in your career field? Does that mean no one else should ever hire you? Should you never be given a shot by another company?

Many folks here seem to rule out divine providence, as if God had nothing to do with +Fellay being consecrated a Bishop or men being admitted to a seminary to test their metal in the fire of sacrifice and self-denial. All things happen for a reason. God’s grace is sufficient. It is how we respond to this grace that makes all the difference.

On another note, it must also be remembered that Winona had limited space and had to be slightly selective as to who was admitted. If it was true that certain men were rejected by Winona, perhaps it was due to limited space and a more qualified applicant. I know of one young man who applied to the seminary and was told by the seminary director that they were filled to capacity and that they should try and apply again next year.

VinnyF · « **Reply #47 on:** February 12, 2014, 10:09:34 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: VinnyF
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Tiffany
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.

We should be supporting them conditionally.

Admittedly, I only know one of the seminarians and at that I could hardly venture to say that I know him, only that I know who he is nominally and a detail or two. As concerns the others, I haven't he slightest clue of even their name, much less their background, personality, disposition, etc.

Anyways, the priesthood is a sacred office and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's not like joining a t-ball team where we should cheer and encourage the boys by the very fact of their undertaking.

Aren't one or two of these men former seminarians from Winona who were "let go" during the rectorship of +Williamson? If so, that might explain his attitude.

This is interesting coming from a Fellayite. Are you still 100% behind Bishop Fellay?

Christ is the only one I have that kind of allegiance to.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #48 on:** February 12, 2014, 11:09:05 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Bishop Williamson, like Bishop Fellay, enjoys no mission from the Church. They do not represent Her through formal apostolic succession, and as such, a Catholic does not owe them obedience, and a Catholic not being "united to" or "allied" with them has absolutely zero impact on whether or not such a person is still a Catholic.

(Latin, missio canonica)
In the Middle Ages this was the Church certification necessary for preaching. In 19th-century Germany it was extended to teaching, as well.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre's 1988 Consecration Sermon

(cf. http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Episcopal-Consecration.htm)

Your applause a while ago was, I think, not a purely temporal manifestation; it was rather a spiritual manifestation, expressing your joy to have at last Catholic bishops and priests who are dedicated to the salvation of your souls, to giving to your souls the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, through good doctrine, through the Sacraments, through the Faith, through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

...

Hence, many seminarians have entrusted themselves to us, they sensed that here was the continuity of the Church, the continuity of' Tradition. And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the Priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries.

...

This is why we have chosen, with the grace of God, priests from our Society who have seemed to us to be the most apt, whilst being in circuмstances and in functions which permit them more easily to fulfill their episcopal ministry, to give Confirmation to your children, and to be able to confer ordinations in our various seminaries. Thus I believe that - with the grace of God, we, Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself, by these consecrations, will have given to Tradition the means to continue, given the means to Catholics who desire to remain within the Church of their parents, their grandparents, of their ancestors.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre's 1988 Recommendations to 4 bishops-elect

(cf. http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect.htm )

"You four will be bishops for the Church, at the service of the Society of St. Pius X, as laid out in the Protocol of May 5. The Society has the standing to deal with Rome. It will be the Superior General's job, when the time comes, to pick up the threads again with Rome.

"Your function will be to give the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation and to KEEP THE FAITH on the occasion of Confirmations, to protect the flock... You will be an immense support for the Society. Let all four of you be of one mind, without too many personal initiatives, for instance when it comes to requests for ordination. Do not ordain men who are on their own, and if they form part of a community, take a good look at the community.

Keep in mind that heretics and schismatics have no authority whatsoever to deny Catholic prelates a canonical mission. So if the above words of Archbishop Lefebvre are not the granting of a canonical mission then what is it? Are you saying that Archbishop Lefebvre himself was somehow relieved of his jurisdiction by heretics and schismatics?

More:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/To_the_Four_Bishops_Elect_June_13_1988.htm

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Recommendations
to the 4 bishops-elect, June 13, 1988

Quote

"Your function will be to give the sacraments, and to preach the Faith. You will be at the service of the Society. Rome only dealt with me because I had the Society behind me. It is a valid entity. Remain very united among yourselves, to lend strength to Tradition. It will be up to the Superior General to take the major decisions...

John Grace · « **Reply #49 on:** February 12, 2014, 01:03:15 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: John Grace
Quote from: VinnyF
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Tiffany
How about giving someone a chance! We should be supporting our young men aspiring to be religious... what if they read this.

We should be supporting them conditionally.

Admittedly, I only know one of the seminarians and at that I could hardly venture to say that I know him, only that I know who he is nominally and a detail or two. As concerns the others, I haven't he slightest clue of even their name, much less their background, personality, disposition, etc.

Anyways, the priesthood is a sacred office and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's not like joining a t-ball team where we should cheer and encourage the boys by the very fact of their undertaking.

Aren't one or two of these men former seminarians from Winona who were "let go" during the rectorship of +Williamson? If so, that might explain his attitude.

This is interesting coming from a Fellayite. Are you still 100% behind Bishop Fellay?

Christ is the only one I have that kind of allegiance to.

My sincerest apologies to VinnyF. He is a good egg.

Fewer and fewer are defending Bishop Fellay. By no means is he a bad man, an evil man but a liberal, who believes his own liberalism.

I agree with the point Tiffany made about giving the men a chance.

JPaul · « **Reply #50 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:37:32 PM »

All of the pontificating and breaking hearts are unnecessary. Before we can begin to explore the situation and comment thoughtfully, we need to know with certainty,

1) Did Bishop Williamson actually use the word losers?

2) In the context of what he said, was he referring to the current Kentucky applicants?

3) Does he know these men?

4) Were some of these men seminary applicants under him?

5) If so, Did he have anything to do with releasing them from the seminary?

Gaining ordination as a Catholic priest is far more important and never equal to the most prestigious of secular positions. Bishop Williamson has the grace of the Episcopacy and should have the experience to judge more fruitfully who is and is not suited for ordination. It is a function of his state, it is not proper to a priest's function and state to make such determinations when valid Bishops are available.

Anyway, talking without knowing the facts is just guessing at best. Let us find them out so that we can speak with our heads on our shoulders and our feet upon the ground.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #51 on:** February 12, 2014, 09:14:19 PM »

The resistance will not fail because it is rooted in the truth. "Truth suffers but never dies" ~ St. Teresa of Avila

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #52 on:** February 12, 2014, 09:52:28 PM »

Quote from: ascent

The resistance will not fail because it is rooted in the truth. "Truth suffers but never dies" ~ St. Teresa of Avila

Then the SSPX should not have failed. Unless it was never rooted in the truth? If it was, apparently being rooted in the truth does not mean that an uprooting cannot happen.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #53 on:** February 13, 2014, 12:35:24 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: ascent
The resistance will not fail because it is rooted in the truth. "Truth suffers but never dies" ~ St. Teresa of Avila

Then the SSPX should not have failed. Unless it was never rooted in the truth? If it was, apparently being rooted in the truth does not mean that an uprooting cannot happen.

The SSPX failed? When did that happen? As long as the remnant of SSPX (strict observance) remains true to the Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre - by the grace of God - taught, defended and preserved, then they will not fail because they are part of the true Church. Yes, Menzingen and the neo-SSPXers will fail if they continue to flirt with modernism and oppress the Resistance. My understanding is the war is still going... and Christ has not returned. Once He returns, the remnant of the true Faith will reign in glory with Christ.

Did the Catholic Church fail when Vatican II Council was assembled and engineered a counterfeit church and mass?

Wessex · « **Reply #54 on:** February 13, 2014, 05:27:06 AM »

At present, resistance is more theoretical than practical. It searches for an honest definition and a mode of operation that will give an adequate expression to all the frustrations and deterioration of Mother Church at the hands of determined subversives. Resistance displaces tradition as a rallying point because the latter has been softened for wider appeal and modernists have also realised the value of such a powerfull weapon in the hands of their dissenters.

Lefebvre relied on traditional attitudes which over time have been softened and eroded by many of his core supporters and benefactors. New generations like the 'benefits' of modern life and would amend principle for them to continue. I would suggest therefore that resistance should be total to mean anything. Which means it moving out of the theoretical into the practical. So many traditionalists were never prepare to do that and were content with liturgical gloss as a way of dealing with change.

The SSPX has not failed if it were a means of gentle readjustment for originally wealthy conservative European Catholics. But it has failed as a practical solution because its long-term goal was vague or even non-existent. While it stews in its own juice it cannot be any other than a parallel church desperately seeking an exit. If the resistance does not want to go the same way, it must have some clear realistic goals alongside restoration theory.

ggreg · « **Reply #55 on:** February 13, 2014, 05:57:25 AM »

Quote from: ascent

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: ascent
The resistance will not fail because it is rooted in the truth. "Truth suffers but never dies" ~ St. Teresa of Avila

Then the SSPX should not have failed. Unless it was never rooted in the truth? If it was, apparently being rooted in the truth does not mean that an uprooting cannot happen.

The SSPX failed? When did that happen? As long as the remnant of SSPX (strict observance) remains true to the Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre - by the grace of God - taught, defended and preserved, then they will not fail because they are part of the true Church. Yes, Menzingen and the neo-SSPXers will fail if they continue to flirt with modernism and oppress the Resistance. My understanding is the war is still going... and Christ has not returned. Once He returns, the remnant of the true Faith will reign in glory with Christ.

Did the Catholic Church fail when Vatican II Council was assembled and engineered a counterfeit church and mass?

Sounds like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to me where you get to define, church, SSPX and "true faith".

Under those circuмstances it will never fail, of course, because YOU will always have it.

How could it be otherwise?

ggreg · « **Reply #56 on:** February 13, 2014, 07:24:53 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

Lefebvre relied on traditional attitudes which over time have been softened and eroded by many of his core supporters and benefactors. New generations like the 'benefits' of modern life and would amend principle for them to continue.

I don't think this is true.

I remember attending SSPX masses in the UK 1978-2004, US 1997 to 2008, Australia, 1994 to 1996 and France 1984 to 1998 and attitudes were not more Traditional than they are today.

For example, I never heard Archbishop Lefebvre or any SSPX priest in the late 1970s or early 1980s suggest that women should not go to University. My sisters all went to University around that time and none of them ever had negativity from any cleric or lay Catholic. That is a value or attitude that came along in the 1990s and I believe came straight from the pen of Bishop Williamson.

Modesty in dress was mentioned from around 1982 but notices pinned to church doors and laity being called out or refused the sacraments did not happen until the late 1980s at the very earliest. Lefebvre was dead or just about to be by then. Those attitudes did not come from him, but directly from the United States priests of the SSPX. I know because I first visited the US in 1997 and went to mass in 14 different US states and the dress code was an abiding memory.

I remember many young women and girls wearing trousers to mass in London or Paris between 1978 and 1986 and unless they were skin tight they were rarely if ever criticised for it.

Your mileage may vary, but Lefebvre was a Frenchman living in Switzerland and my Eurocentric memories of meeting him and visiting the chapels and priests he was closest too was that they were not as hard as the hardliners today. The aggregated Pre-split SSPX was far more hardline than the aggregated SSPX in Lefebvre's time.

I think Lefebvre actually relied on hope, (it had only been a decade or two that the crisis had been going on), Charity, he understood it was better to have people in the SSPX chapels with liberal faults than to chase them away, and much wisdom and common sense. I remember a lot of talk about the Freemasons but nobody ever doubted the moon-landings or helio-centrism back then. I was a very keen science student in those days so I think I would remember. Back then nutters were not mainstream.

I think several things happened to change the nature of the SSPX

Assisi, shocked and scared people and made them close ranks and react in an opposite fashion.

The hardliners got more of a foothold when Lefebvre was dead or dying and a group of less hardline SSPXers left the chapels. Various priests left to join the FSSP to escape the hardliners. Around 1993 the SSPX in the US was about as hardline as it has ever been. Converts arrived who adopted the more hardline status quo, as newbies they had no other option and converts find the zealousness attractive. Bishop Williamson who had always had a loyal camp of seminarians and priests, who liked his charm and oratory, picked up a group of lay supporters too. As the only English speaking Bishop, Williamson had a distinct advantage over a secretive Swiss and a couple of other Bishops with almost no public profile.

The h0Ɩ0h0αx comments and other things Bishop Williamson had said before brought matters to a head and Bishop Fellay could see he had to do something to stop an internal war.

The reality as I had experienced it, is that the arguments the SSPX used to justify its position 40 years ago now appear weaker and the situation more confused than in the early 1970s.

The next big event will be the Canonisation of JP2 at the end of April. If that goes ahead then I know very many Trads from FSSP to SSPX to Resistance who will be very troubled by it as they were by Assisi.

JPaul · « **Reply #57 on:** February 13, 2014, 07:58:14 AM »

Wessex,

Quote

The SSPX has not failed if it were a means of gentle readjustment for originally wealthy conservative European Catholics. But it has failed as a practical solution because its long-term goal was vague or even non-existent. While it stews in its own juice it cannot be any other than a parallel church desperately seeking an exit. If the resistance does not want to go the same way, it must have some clear realistic goals alongside restoration theory

As long as the resistance functions primarily to combat Bishop Fellay and restore a compromised SSPX, rather than define and conform itself in reality as a vehicle of true and direct resistance to the Conciliar sect it can go no further than its parent has and is likely to inherit the same fate within a few decades or less.

It seems that there no coherent plan or larger principle is proposed for such combat other than to remain in high orbit around the SSPX with an occasional shot fired into the Conciliar void.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #58 on:** February 13, 2014, 08:36:02 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Sigismund
Why is Bishop Williamson opposed to a seminary? Where does he expect new priests to come from?

It seems the question should be not "opposed to A seminary," but rather "opposed to THIS seminary." But according to Fr. Pfeiffer, it's more like "opposed to these seminarians."

Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:

So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.

Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.

That's not a direct quote, and I don't recall what the venue or date was. And I didn't really understand it very well, because it doesn't sound like +W to have such opinions of seminarians. There must be more to it than that. Maybe he did not think well of the buildings themselves? But Fr. didn't say that. Fr. Chazal has gone on record referring to it as a "cardboard seminary." That is in reference to its humble setting: not very comfortable, inconvenient pests (animals / bugs), muddy rutted roads, heating inadequacy, various things that are not the stuff that make for an attractive brochure. Basically, nobody who expects a two-star accommodation need apply. For sure, they are getting an early training in penitential living.

My question is, how does their willingness to tolerate such conditions make for them to be thought of as "losers?" Something doesn't add up with that. In my book, any seminarian who can willingly agree to misery while he studies is already halfway to sainthood.
.

What a great grace from God it is to be known as a loser. That's one of the graces of being a traditionalist. Everyone thinks you are a loser. But how much better it is to be thought a loser by the losers themselves! Deo gratias!

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #59 on:** February 13, 2014, 08:38:49 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote
Fr. Pfeiffer explained in a recent conference that +W thought the seminarians in KY are "losers," but Fr. defended them with something like this:

So what's new about that? We've all been losers. Nobody is worthy to become a priest; that much is a given.

Another man present in the audience added, "You have to start somewhere." -Meaning that the Resistance is just getting started, so you shouldn't expect perfection from square one, or something like that.

A few thoughts on these comments,

Father Pfieffer's comments while they are indeed charitable, are a misdirection from whether or not the candidates are actually suitable for the Catholic priesthood, a subject upon which Bishop Williamson is much more qualified to make such a judgment.

The good Father does not address the qualities or qualifications of said applicants.

As to the lay comment, it is true that any endeavor must begin somewhere, but one such as a seminary for the priesthood should be considered only when at least a minimum standard of accommodation and physical ability by which to properly train and educate the candidates is present.

Simply finding a location and enlisting the first warm bodies who apply is neither prudent or adequate for such an enterprise.

This is also an illustration of why the Bishop does not want to lead such a group. He would have no actual control over its members as it has been shown from the beginning that they will not favor his advice or his dictates when they conflict with what they want to do and when they want to do it.

Candidates should definitely be tested and those who do not measure up should be let go. But don't forget St. Joseph of Cupertino who was as dumb as a rock. God gave him miraculous graces in order to pass the test and become a priest despite being an idiot. Deo gratias! He is a saint!