Author Topic: Eleison Comments 307: Authority Crippled (Read 12727 times)

Domitilla · « **Reply #30 on:** June 01, 2013, 09:41:12 AM »

s2srea, your words are really quite beautiful, but it is now 40+ years later and we are surrounded by the enemy on all sides. If ++ABL were alive today, are you sure he would have taken the more passive approach? Our own Traditional leadership is in free-fall and we are faced with dire consequences. As St Teresa of Avila said when referring to the Lutheran revolt: "We need virile souls"!

In the meantime, I will continue to pray multiple daily rosaries and maintain a holy hope for our Blessed Mother and Queen to intervene in these terrible times.

s2srea · « **Reply #31 on:** June 01, 2013, 09:52:47 AM »

Quote from: Domitilla

s2srea, your words are really quite beautiful, but it is now 40+ years later and we are surrounded by the enemy on all sides. If ++ABL were alive today, are you sure he would have taken the more passive approach?

Thank you Domitilla. As to what the Archbishop would or wouldn't do, I couldn't say really. Don't forget there were other Catholics of the time who did indeed find it necessary for themselves to take a more aggressive approach (I'm thinking of the beginnings of the CMRI, and other independent Traditionalists). I suppose I see things in the following manner. (1) Bishop Williamson is surely far more spiritual than myself. What he has done thus far tells me he is far more open to God's will than many others. (2) If we are thinking in terms of men only, we might be discouraged by the words of Bishop Williamson. But we must call to mind that our Blessed Lord is in control. What he Wills will be. We may feel compelled to disagree with Bishop Williamson.

I say, lets wait and see what happens. I don't' remember Bishop Williamson ever running this resistance with a banner promoting a new society; quite the opposite. We are in a grave state, yes. But God works on His own time, not ours. As far as I'm concerned, I still have access to the sacraments. I still have access to a fully Catholic priest, and I still have my Faith- which I intend to keep and fight for to the death. People are free to disagree with me, and I know many likely will. But this is just a matter of opinion for people who can not do much.

We must wait for the priests to make the next move, as we are not priests or bishops. Even if we disagree with Bishop Williamson, then what? What can we do apart from perhaps writing to him? Disturbing our souls and fretting over what should happen, what might happen, and what we think will happen is not beneficial to anyone, especially ourselves.

Quote

Our own Traditional leadership is in free-fall and we are faced with dire consequences. As St Teresa of Avila said when referring to the Lutheran revolt: "We need virile souls"!

In the meantime, I will continue to pray multiple daily rosaries and maintain a holy hope for our Blessed Mother and Queen to intervene in these terrible times.

Your policy is a noble and holy one. I will try to do the same.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #32 on:** June 01, 2013, 10:20:11 AM »

s2srea said:

Lefebvre, M. (2002). The Little Story of My Long Life. (1st English Edition ed., p. 103). Sisters of the Society of Saint Pius X, Inc. said:
....I am not interested in beginning a new undertaking."

Faced with this project which did not appeal to me at all- here again, it was Providence which was compelling me to forge ahead!- I said: "Fine! Listen, it is simple, since you insist, it will be Bishop Charriere who decides. I know bishop Charriere, the bishop of Fribourg. I will go and see him. If he encourages me to go ahead, fine, I will see if I can organize something for these seminarians."There was still no question though, of founding a society just of taking care of these seminarians in a more direct way. "If bishop Charriere does not agree, then I will not do anything or do only what he tells me."

Comment:

1) Thank you for correcting me on this point;

2) I am not interested in being proven right, but in having the truth come to the surface;

3) This post does contradict what I have said in my response to His Lordship's EC on p. 2 of this thread;

4) I acknowledge my mistaken assertion that ABL "would not have sent his seminarians packing without the approval of the Swiss bishop."

5) All that said, in 1970 the nascent SSPX was not yet having recourse to the doctrine of necessity;

6) It was not yet necessary, having gained the authorization of the Swiss bishop;

7) The discussion of necessity only entered into the picture when authority no longer authorized the existence/continuation of the SSPX;

8) It was in later years (post-1976 invalid suspension) that the SSPX had to consider what to do when placed in the dilemma of having authorization revoked, yet the faithful remaining in a state of grave spiritual necessity;

9) It was this situation which made Archbishop Lefebvre conscious of his duty;

10) And it was the realization of this duty, now that authorization was revoked, that compelled him to act without authority (authority which in reality was supplied directly by the Church);

11) So my retraction is partial: It appears that in the early stages when official authorization was given (1970-1975/6), Archbishop Lefebvre was not willing to act without it (the consideration of duties and obligations in a state of necessity not yet entering into the equation precisely because permission was forthcoming);

12) But continuing the SSPX; ignoring the 1976 suspension; performing the 1988 consecrations; etc; all seem to suggest that Archbishop Lefebvre no longer cared whether or not the churchmen gave permission, knowing the Church itself did.

13) Fast-forward to today:

14) 40 years of argumentation and justification for the SSPX apostolate based on necessity having been fully developed and applied, it seems "regressive" given the full consciousness of the state of the Church and SSPX today, to be overly concerned with obtaining modernist approval to found an anti-modernist congregation.

15) And in any case, that Archbishop Lefebvre appears (from the quote provided) to indeed have been willing to send his seminarians packing but for official approval, as Domitilla suggests, with the benefit of 40 years of taking action based on the doctrine of necessity, I can't imagine ABL making the same decision today;

16) Since to do so would overturn 40 years of SSPX/Catholic apologetics which has justified everything the SSPX has undertook in the last 40 years.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #33 on:** June 01, 2013, 10:30:26 AM »

In other words, Archbishop Lefebvre may have expressed a desire to obtain official approval to form the SSPX in 1970, but had that approval been denied, he still would have been compelled to form one according to the doctrine of necessity.

That he expresses his unwillingness to do so without approval does not change the obligations and duties of bishops in a state of necessity.

Archbishop Lefebvre's will was not free in the matter, though he appears not to have considered that in 1970, because the consideration was made irrelevant by the approval he received.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #34 on:** June 01, 2013, 10:44:29 AM »

Or put another way:

It was not the illegal suppression of the SSPX which authorized (and rightfully presumed authority for) the 1988 consecrations, but the state of necessity which compelled Archbishop Lefebvre to act in the matter, whether he wanted to or not.

His personal will in the matter was irrelevant to his duties to come to the aid of the faithful trapped in necessity.

s2srea · « **Reply #35 on:** June 01, 2013, 11:07:49 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Or put another way:

It was not the illegal suppression of the SSPX which authorized (and rightfully presumed authority for) the 1988 consecrations, but the state of necessity which compelled Archbishop Lefebvre to act in the matter, whether he wanted to or not.

His personal will in the matter was irrelevant to his duties to come to the aid of the faithful trapped in necessity.

Thank you SJ. I see where you're coming from. Now, whether this state of necessity requires that a union of priests be formed, is another matter, is it not? As long as there is a perpetuation of priests and bishops who can administer valid sacraments, is there a actual need for a congregation? One can clearly see the benefit to having a union of priests, but are those benefits outweighed by the weakness in such a structure, as found in the Neo SSPX?

JPaul · « **Reply #36 on:** June 01, 2013, 11:21:25 AM »

Archbishop LeFebvre was compelled to do what he did to preserve the Catholic priesthood. A purpose which according the Church allowed him to act a state of necessity. He always wished to act within the law of the Church. In this case the Church allowed him to circuмvent it, while still satisfying its intent.

Bishop Williamson is not in that same situation yet. If the Society joins an unconverted Rome and the integrity and survival of the Priesthood is once again endangered. I have no doubt whatsoever, that Bishop Williamson will do what is appropriate to preserve the Catholic priesthood and the Religion.

To move at the wrong time can be disastrous. Were he to form a congregation now, it would likely be stopped dead in its tracks and overwhelmed by controversy over the legality and method of its institution, and would spend too much of its time and resources to counter these attacks.
It would not be able to get down to the true purpose of its erection, and its message would be lost in irrelevancies.

He advised the Vienna Fathers to wait until circuмstances would be more favorable to their cause. They did not, and now are rolling a very large boulder up a very steep hill.
This has placed an inordinate burden upon them and they have not been able to accomplish as much or gain as much sarcerdotal support as the might have with better timing.

One of Father Chazal's first fusillades was called "War On". Well if it is indeed a war, then one must adopt a stategy to achieve the goal of victory. A most critical part of strategy is advantageous timing. Also allowing the adversary's misteps and other circuмstances to provide a better chance of achieving short and long term victory.

The Bishop is waiting and observing. He has experience and wisdom. The correct strategy will come to him. God will provide the circuмstances for him to use it, if it is His will to do so.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #37 on:** June 01, 2013, 11:35:13 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Or put another way:

It was not the illegal suppression of the SSPX which authorized (and rightfully presumed authority for) the 1988 consecrations, but the state of necessity which compelled Archbishop Lefebvre to act in the matter, whether he wanted to or not.

His personal will in the matter was irrelevant to his duties to come to the aid of the faithful trapped in necessity.

Thank you SJ. I see where you're coming from. Now, whether this state of necessity requires that a union of priests be formed, is another matter, is it not? As long as there is a perpetuation of priests and bishops who can administer valid sacraments, is there a actual need for a congregation? One can clearly see the benefit to having a union of priests, but are those benefits outweighed by the weakness in such a structure, as found in the Neo SSPX?

s2s-

"Does necessity require that a new congregation be formed" is indeed the question.

It is definitely my preference to see Bishop Williamson start a new congregation.

It seems prudent.

But is it necessary, in the theological sense.

Not sure.

But I know this much:

If he dies without leaving something behind, it is a repeat of 16th century Japan.

How many 16th-19th century Japanese do you think saved their souls, having never gone to confession or received communion in their entire lives?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #38 on:** June 01, 2013, 11:38:32 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Archbishop LeFebvre was compelled to do what he did to preserve the Catholic priesthood. A purpose which according the Church allowed him to act a state of necessity. He always wished to act within the law of the Church. In this case the Church allowed him to circuмvent it, while still satisfying its intent.

Bishop Williamson is not in that same situation yet. If the Society joins an unconverted Rome and the integrity and survival of the Priesthood is once again endangered. I have no doubt whatsoever, that Bishop Williamson will do what is appropriate to preserve the Catholic priesthood and the Religion.

To move at the wrong time can be disastrous. Were he to form a congregation now, it would likely be stopped dead in its tracks and overwhelmed by controversy over the legality and method of its institution, and would spend too much of its time and resources to counter these attacks.
It would not be able to get down to the true purpose of its erection, and its message would be lost in irrelevancies.

He advised the Vienna Fathers to wait until circuмstances would be more favorable to their cause. They did not, and now are rolling a very large boulder up a very steep hill.
This has placed an inordinate burden upon them and they have not been able to accomplish as much or gain as much sarcerdotal support as the might have with better timing.

One of Father Chazal's first fusillades was called "War On". Well if it is indeed a war, then one must adopt a stategy to achieve the goal of victory. A most critical part of strategy is advantageous timing. Also allowing the adversary's misteps and other circuмstances to provide a better chance of achieving short and long term victory.

The Bishop is waiting and observing. He has experience and wisdom. The correct strategy will come to him. God will provide the circuмstances for him to use it, if it is His will to do so.

Are you saying the time will not be right until such time as starting a new congregation (or consecrating bishops) would have wide support and popular approval amongst traditional laity and clergy?

Machabees · « **Reply #39 on:** June 01, 2013, 12:52:38 PM »

As others had pointed out, Vat. II was brand new, and ABL was a RETIRED Prelate. He was coming from a “fresh” perspective in the beginning of this crisis with seeing a more visible structure of authority in the tenants of the Church than it is today (obviously); for which, in ABL’s thinking it would be more in accord with working with the visible parts of that structure he saw that still had a Catholic sense. So we cannot compare the two times Providence had showed at the early time of 1970 to the duressed time of 2012 as being the same.

Also from 1970 to 1976, ABL was talking to conciliar Rome on terms of “apologetics”. After 1976 and onward, ABL was talking on terms of the “Doctrine of Necessity” and was starting to build a STRUCTURE caused by conciliar Rome’s hand that did make it into -a wholesale state of “Doctrine of Necessity”.

Further, in ABL’s time, he had stated many times as each year had passed since the time of 1970, that Vat. II is more evil than he had first thought (…). Therefore, the “situation” for ABL had STRUCTURLY changed to the “Doctrine of Necessity” after the initial 1970.

On a side note. I personally think that God provided that structure to happen in 1970 to be the “anchored thorn” for conciliar Rome in order for Tradition to launch its worldwide stand and have its tremendous fruits with other religious orders drawing from that. Continuing still, if Bishop Williamson starts something, it is because of the roots of that Providential structure (he is a Bishop from it). And, illegal as it was that he was expelled from it, he is still never the less, a SSPX member that history will come to vindicate him; along with some of the other priests that were similarly expelled.

As history clearly shows with Bishop Williamson, that in the situation, and time of ABL, beginning on year one, there is a HUGE difference in comparing the situation, and time, of Bishop Williamson with now year 43 of travesty already gone by seeing the onslaught of destruction since Vat. II in this [diabolical] crisis against the Church.

For Bishop Williamson, he was “born” in the “Doctrine of Necessity” NOT outside of it. Therefore, for Bishop Williamson, he is NOT retired; he must lead in the fight that was entrusted to him by Our Lord Jesus Christ -and His messenger- ABL.

In other words, Bishop Williamson in 1988 was made out of the “Doctrine of Necessity” and he must continue in it until conciliar Rome returns back to her identity in order to put his miter at the feet of the [converted] Pope, until then there is still a “Doctrine of Necessity” and he must act accordingly.

In another point of history, St. Athanasius did not need to, nor start, a “congregation” in order to gather, protect, and lead the priests and the sheep…he just acted like an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ and gathered his priests, confirmed the brethren, and in time, he ordained priests and consecrated other Bishops for the survival of the Church.

The key point here is, St. Athanasius did not need to, nor start, a “congregation” in order to gather, protect, and lead the priests and the sheep!

Bishop Williamson, as a Bishop, needs to step-up to be more UNITIVE with his priests and faithful in this fight for the Faith, and for the integrity of the Catholic Church, that God had entrusted to him; NOT just to be a “father, adviser, and friend”.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #40 on:** June 01, 2013, 01:11:58 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

As others had pointed out, Vat. II was brand new, and ABL was a RETIRED Prelate. He was coming from a “fresh” perspective in the beginning of this crisis with seeing a more visible structure of authority in the tenants of the Church than it is today (obviously); for which, in ABL’s thinking it would be more in accord with working with the visible parts of that structure he saw that still had a Catholic sense. So we cannot compare the two times Providence had showed at the early time of 1970 to the duressed time of 2012 as being the same.

Also from 1970 to 1976, ABL was talking to conciliar Rome on terms of “apologetics”. After 1976 and onward, ABL was talking on terms of the “Doctrine of Necessity” and was starting to build a STRUCTURE caused by conciliar Rome’s hand that did make it into -a wholesale state of “Doctrine of Necessity”.

Further, in ABL’s time, he had stated many times as each year had passed since the time of 1970, that Vat. II is more evil than he had first thought (…). Therefore, the “situation” for ABL had STRUCTURLY changed to the “Doctrine of Necessity” after the initial 1970.

On a side note. I personally think that God provided that structure to happen in 1970 to be the “anchored thorn” for conciliar Rome in order for Tradition to launch its worldwide stand and have its tremendous fruits with other religious orders drawing from that. Continuing still, if Bishop Williamson starts something, it is because of the roots of that Providential structure (he is a Bishop from it). And, illegal as it was that he was expelled from it, he is still never the less, a SSPX member that history will come to vindicate him; along with some of the other priests that were similarly expelled.

As history clearly shows with Bishop Williamson, that in the situation, and time of ABL, beginning on year one, there is a HUGE difference in comparing the situation, and time, of Bishop Williamson with now year 43 of travesty already gone by seeing the onslaught of destruction since Vat. II in this [diabolical] crisis against the Church.

For Bishop Williamson, he was “born” in the “Doctrine of Necessity” NOT outside of it. Therefore, for Bishop Williamson, he is NOT retired; he must lead in the fight that was entrusted to him by Our Lord Jesus Christ -and His messenger- ABL.

In other words, Bishop Williamson in 1988 was made out of the “Doctrine of Necessity” and he must continue in it until conciliar Rome returns back to her identity in order to put his miter at the feet of the [converted] Pope, until then there is still a “Doctrine of Necessity” and he must act accordingly.

In another point of history, St. Athanasius did not need to, nor start, a “congregation” in order to gather, protect, and lead the priests and the sheep…he just acted like an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ and gathered his priests, confirmed the brethren, and in time, he ordained priests and consecrated other Bishops for the survival of the Church.

The key point here is, St. Athanasius did not need to, nor start, a “congregation” in order to gather, protect, and lead the priests and the sheep!

Bishop Williamson, as a Bishop, needs to step-up to be more UNITIVE with his priests and faithful in this fight for the Faith, and for the integrity of the Catholic Church, that God had entrusted to him; NOT just to be a “father, adviser, and friend”.

Great post, except that I would observe (relative to your 2nd to last paragraph) that if St. Athanasius did not found a congregation to organize against Arianism, it was because St. Benedict, Cassian, et al had not yet invented monastic/communal life by this point in Church history.

And more to the point, had the idea occurred to him, he certainly would not have sought the approval of Arian bishops to authorize an order designed to destroy them.

Would not the answer be predictable?

Yet, is it not equally obvious that the necessity would vindicate such a decision nevertheless?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #41 on:** June 01, 2013, 01:13:39 PM »

.

+W is in favor of a loose association of traditional priests. This is not
something new. It is what has been going on ever since Fr. Gommar
de Pauw refused to say the Newmass and began the traditionalist
movement. There have been many such priests, including Fr. Bolduc,
Fr. Trinchard, Fr. Wickens, Fr. Schell, Fr. Jarecki, Fr. Perez, Fr. Voigt, and
many more, some of whom said the Newmass for a while but were
converted and returned to the CTLM.

This has been going on for 44 years.

It is an opinion that SeanJohnson effectively shares with Fr. Pfeiffer, that
some manner of organization is needed. So I'm not going to say that
someone is wrong and someone is right.

But there is an element of risk involved with starting up such a thing
without canonical jurisdiction. I'm no expert in this, but one of the things
that comes to mind is, if one group can form, then two can, or three, or
twenty seven, or five thousand or whatever. That is why the local bishop
is important.

Another aspect that divides this issue is which missal to use: the Missal of
John XXIII, which is the Missal of Vatican II (the Missal that was in use
during the entirety of Vat.II and which was constantly being revised
therefore it inherently carries the historical principle of liturgical revision
inside of it), or, the pre-1954 Canonized Traditional Latin Mass Missal,
which is essentially identical to the 1570 Missal of Quo Primum, with
legitimate and organic growth additions such as the Leonine Prayers
after Low Mass, and new saints and/or Feast Days that were added, such
as St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Francis de Sales, St.
John Bosco, St. Maria Goretti, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Peter Canisius, St.
Louis de Montfort, St. John Vianney, and so on, plus Feast Days such as
The Sacred Heart of Jesus, Corpus Christi, the Immaculate Heart of
Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal, Jesus
Christ, King, and so on.

+W seems to favor the latter, but he is not outspoken about this, and
we all know what any Newchurch prelate would prefer if he were to
approve the formation of any new organization. So from the start, there
is a bone of contention. After the Chastisement or whatever it takes
for us to get a good Pope and some good bishops again, having an
approval to use the CTLM will be no problem, which would be another
reason +W prefers to wait, IMHO.

Note: since Vat.II some have been moved or abandoned, such as St.
Philomena, St. Barbara, St. Christopher and others, and questionable
new ones have been introduced such as Mother of God (Jan. 1st,
displacing the Circuмcision, while Divine Maternity of Blessed Mary,
Oct. 11th was abandoned - and the new name "Mother of God" is an
obvious gesture of accommodation to the Orthodox), Divine Mercy
(displacing Low Sunday), Christ the King (moved from last Sunday in
October to last Sunday of the year, abandoning the traditional 24th and
Last Sunday after Pentecost because of the "intolerable" Gospel of
Matthew xxiv.), and others. Brace yourself for the feast days of JPII,
John XXIII, Paul VI, and perhaps even Vatican II - which would
probably be October 11th, since that was the day John XXIII gave his
M.R.S., opening the Council and the Church to the Age of Modernism.
Oct. 11th of 2012, as the "Golden Anniversary" of the opening of Vat.II,
was the day Benedict XVI chose to open his "Year of Faith" which still
continues, going on until the Newfangled Christ the King Sunday that
"displaces" Matthew xxiv.

So, which of these Newfangled changes are to be observed and which
are not? I know of one TLM priest who observes Divine Mercy Sunday
instead of Low Sunday, and he is respected by other TLM priests
nonetheless. Je attracts a contingent of Filipinos that way - need I say
more? If Fr. Pfeiffer somehow gets an organization started up
(but it probably won't be with the blessing of +W), is he going to
insist that all the priests use the Missal of Vat.II and John XXIII?
Because, that's what he uses now. It's the one Angelus Press sells,
and you can see where Angelus Press is going these days.

It seems to me that this attitude of aggressiveness that pushes for an
organization of trad priests is an attitude of division and anxiety that
does no good for the Resistance, per se. It introduces discord
where there need be none.

JPaul · « **Reply #42 on:** June 01, 2013, 01:17:24 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: J.Paul
Archbishop LeFebvre was compelled to do what he did to preserve the Catholic priesthood. A purpose which according the Church allowed him to act a state of necessity. He always wished to act within the law of the Church. In this case the Church allowed him to circuмvent it, while still satisfying its intent.

Bishop Williamson is not in that same situation yet. If the Society joins an unconverted Rome and the integrity and survival of the Priesthood is once again endangered. I have no doubt whatsoever, that Bishop Williamson will do what is appropriate to preserve the Catholic priesthood and the Religion.

To move at the wrong time can be disastrous. Were he to form a congregation now, it would likely be stopped dead in its tracks and overwhelmed by controversy over the legality and method of its institution, and would spend too much of its time and resources to counter these attacks.
It would not be able to get down to the true purpose of its erection, and its message would be lost in irrelevancies.

He advised the Vienna Fathers to wait until circuмstances would be more favorable to their cause. They did not, and now are rolling a very large boulder up a very steep hill.
This has placed an inordinate burden upon them and they have not been able to accomplish as much or gain as much sarcerdotal support as the might have with better timing.

One of Father Chazal's first fusillades was called "War On". Well if it is indeed a war, then one must adopt a stategy to achieve the goal of victory. A most critical part of strategy is advantageous timing. Also allowing the adversary's misteps and other circuмstances to provide a better chance of achieving short and long term victory.

The Bishop is waiting and observing. He has experience and wisdom. The correct strategy will come to him. God will provide the circuмstances for him to use it, if it is His will to do so.

Are you saying the time will not be right until such time as starting a new congregation (or consecrating bishops) would have wide support and popular approval amongst traditional laity and clergy?

Not at all. Forming a congregation is not a a matter of a popularity. contest. Wide support in not required, the necessary support for viability is. Circuмstances at the time might determine that it be large or minimal.

The Menzingen cadre is running down on its ability to revise and "explain"
the questionable things that it does. There will be a time of reckoning when the issues will be clear enough that priests and laity will have to choose one side or the other. Wait and see will no longer be a valid position.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #43 on:** June 01, 2013, 01:19:13 PM »

On another note, regarding His Lordship's desire to have official Church[men] approval before founding another congregation:

1) What about all the other affiliated SSPX religious orders that never received official Church[men] approval for their congregations?

2) So far as I am aware, the Transalpine Redemptorists, Le Barroux, etc never received canonical recognition.

3) But I also cannot ever remember hearing about Archbishop Lefebvre castigating them for having organized on their own accord without approval.

4) It might seem nice to be allowed to be traditional, but asking permission to be so seems out of place.

5) Finally, I would say that the question should not so much be whether necessity requires Bishop Williamson to start another congregation, but simply whether it permits him to do so.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #44 on:** June 01, 2013, 01:21:20 PM »

There is perhaps too strong a belief in the SSPX as an institution, which would only be natural for someone a part of it for so long.