Author Topic: SSPX GB District changes  (Read 28012 times)

Offline perdurabit

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 181
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #180 on: November 02, 2015, 03:28:34 PM »
Poor, desperate Gerard.  I'm sure I'm not the only one praying for you.
 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3213
  • Thanked: 881 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #181 on: November 02, 2015, 08:14:28 PM »
Poor, desperate Gerard.  I'm sure I'm not the only one praying for you.

Not poor and desperate, see my previous posts. 

Thanks for the prayers though.   :D
 

Offline Elizabeth

  • Mary Garden
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 4515
  • Thanked: 1559 times
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #182 on: November 03, 2015, 08:56:55 PM »
To imply that Satan is guiding a Catholic bishop is a grave charge.

All men are sinners, it's not a grave charge to say there is a "diabolical disorientation" at work. 

Quote
Beyond personal judgment of another man's inner counsel - something that we are adjoined to avoid at all costs - what is your basis for this personal opinion?

The objective contradictions in the positions of Bishop Fellay.  I've posted them numerous times on these threads. 


Quote
So your premise is that, because NO popes claimed to have been guided by the Holy Ghost, Bishop Fellay is cut from the same cloth, simply because he seeks the guidance of the Holy Ghost?  May God protect those of us who do likewise from such rash judgment.

Nope.  I'm saying that leaders of the Church have been hiding behind a claim of being guided by the Holy Ghost. 

Quote
Feel free to quote both - in no way, shape or form does either imply that Catholic Answers (read: conciliar Catholicism) is correct.  You may wish to refer to the Society's response to the individual clauses of the agreement they refused to accept in 2012.

First to correct the record: It was Al Matt of the Wanderer who coined the "trajectory towards schism" phrase.  Not much different than Catholic Answers with more smells and bells, but I want to be correct and when I double checked, I found it was the Wanderer and I mistakenly attributed it to Catholic Answers (who were not so generous but rather declared outright schism over the years.) 

I don't need to refer to the individual clauses, there should not have been any kind of deal in any way.  Rome made no positive turn towards tradition and away from progressivism.  Bp. Fellay may have inferred some that wasn't there when he would "read between the lines."  But it boils down to Unity over Truth. 


Quote
Quote

Archbishop LeFebvre established the SSPX to form traditional priests and provide the faithful with solid Catholic teaching, liturgy, practice and sacraments to save souls. 



A mission that many would say continues to this day, doe gratis

Sure and the same can be said for the FSSP, but that doesn't mean there is no crisis in the larger Church or the SSPX itself. 

Quote
Quote

LeFebvre had no qualms about the irregular status of the SSPX preventing that mission from continuing. On the contrary, it thrived and grew. 

LeFebvre consecrated bishops to continue to carry on that mission and wanted no compromise with modernist Rome, the guiding factor was that Rome must change back to tradition.


That is untrue on both counts. 

No it is true.  He had no wish to be part of conciliar Rome. 

He certainly did not want a compromise on doctrine and did definitely insist that Rome must change.

Quote
ABL envisioned a return to Rome in due course, and instructed his bishops to re-open negotiations when they felt that the time was propitious.

In due course, not a rush job.  And also not going hat in hand for fear of renewed phony excommunications.  There was certainly nothing propitious in Fellay's approach. 

Quote
   It may also be argued that, by continuing conversations with Rome, ABL played a very skilful negotiating hand: remaining in dialogue while holding the Society at a safe distance from the worst excesses of V2.  Who are we to say that Bp Fellay is doing anything different?

Bishop Fellay of 2003 says different.  GREC says different.  Bishop Fellay of 2013 says different when he says he was deceived by Rome.  Bp. Fellay was the last SSPX bishop to know he was being deceived. 

Quote
To imply that he is doing something nefarious by conducting discussions with Rome is applying personal judgment again.  Worse, it could be construed as a sin against the Holy Ghost.

One certainly cannot infer from his reversals, new attitudes, flip flopping arguments and exposed deceptions (eg. GREC) that he is up to something virtuous. 


Quote
Quote


Bishop Fellay by contrast, worries that the irregular status could potentially lead to a real schism in his words. 

So, that means that Bishop Fellay does not believe the SSPX can safeguard the faith, and form minds and hearts in a Catholic way that will protect them, not only from modernism, but from a "schismatic mindset"


ABL never envisaged a Society permanently separated from Rome. 

The SSPX was never separated from Rome except by some bureaucratic fiction. 

And no one including Williamson and the resistant priests ever believed that fiction would remain in place permanently. 

But they also weren't going to eliminate that fiction by indulging in another fiction of Unity over the Truth. 

Quote
Looking at some of the individuals on both sides of the political divide, seemingly intent upon striking the shepherd in order to scatter the sheep , who are we to question his judgment?

One can question his judgement when he stopped being consistent and was on Monday at odds with what he espoused on the previous Saturday.

Quote
So, that means that LeFebvre was wrong about the capabilities of his apostolate.   

So, that means that LeFebvre was wrong to continue without canonical regularity.  Fr. Bisig was correct in breaking away to form the FSSP at least if one follows what Bishop Fellay states to a logical conclusion.


That is a non-sequitur and a further example of rash personal judgment. [/quote]

No it's not at all.  It's the logical conclusion based on the statements of Bp. Fellay.  If the SSPX can't teach anyone to properly avoid schism, what makes anyone think they can teach people to avoid progressivism or modernism? 

Quote



Quote
 

So, if the SSPX by being in an irregular state may some day lead to a real schism, that potential failure of catechesis, is too much to risk, so the SSPX had better get back into canonical regularity with the modernists and progressives. 

That means that the crisis is not the crisis of the Church that the SSPX is supposed to fight against.  The crisis is the SSPX's canonical situation. 


The irregular state of the SSPX has nothing to do with catechesis - since when have Catholics been taught that the Bride of Christ has defected? 

You're not following.  Proper Catechesis has everything to do with the SSPX and its mission.  So, if Bishop Fellay believes the SSPX cannot catechize the faithful against the dangers of a real schism, he believes the irregular status of the SSPX imposed uncharitably, unjustly and immorally by Rome corrupts the SSPX.

So, the SSPX is not capable of fulfilling the mission entrusted to it by Bishop Fellay.  Rome by refusing canonical status defeated Archbishop LeFebvre post-mortem.  Bp. Fellay seems to think he's realized this. 


Quote
Or that She will not remain eternal and visible, a beacon unto the nations?  Or that the Gates of Hell have prevailed upon Her?

You would think if the SSPX is teaching all of that, Bishop Fellay would not be worried about a real schism being possible.  But he does.  So, either he isn't believing the catechesis or he thinks Unity over Truth somehow avoids Schism and Apostasy. 

Quote

Quote

Fr. Pfluger stated in his lectures that Bishop Fellay is afraid to say "no" to Rome for fear of renewed excommunciations. 

In his letter to the three bishops Fellay made the strange statement that "Rome will no longer tolerate it"  (the situation of the SSPX)

He also I'mplicitly stated that they are in schism.  "Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end. But to refuse to work in the field because there are still weeds that may crowd out or hamper the good grain is a curious reading of the Biblical lesson:"  Funny, I've never viewed the SSPX as not "working in the field" That accusation has always come from the Neo-Catholics.  I've always thought of the SSPX as working in the fields harder than most. 

So, with Fellay it has become an issue of Unity over the Truth instead of Unity in the Truth. 


God is unity.  Unless you know something different?

Yes, there are more definitions of unity than being synonymous with God.  Unless you think canonical unity is Divine unity? 

Quote
Sometimes, we just have to trust that our elders and betters might just know more than the overly vocal hoi-polloi, and leave them to do the job they were elected to do.

Then the SSPX should not exist at all. They should just have trusted Paul VI through Francis. 

Quote
  Trust in God and, if the situation of the SSPX concerns you, pray for it and for its leadership, that they may do God's will in all things.

Stating my concerns and pointing out contradictions doesn't rule out my prayer intentions.  If the Popes would do God's will in all things, the SSPX would have no issues and would be able to be dissolved or integrated into the canonical system with ease. 


Quote


Per St Cyprian:

The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home, with chaste modesty she guards the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God; she assigns the children whom she has created to the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined with an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he who has abandoned the Church arrive at the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He cannot have God as a father who does not have the Church as a mother. If whoever was outside the ark of Noe was able to escape, he too who is outside. the Church escapes. The Lord warns, saying: 'He who is not with me is against me, and who does not gather with me, scatters.' He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ acts against Christ; he who gathers somewhere outside the Church scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says: 'I and the Father are one.' And again of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And these three are one.' Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

I can counter that with St. Pius X : "That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man."









Quote
Quote

He can live with modernism, but not a false accusation of a real schism that is a phantom in his mind. 

Since there is no schism, he is worried about the "schismatic trajectory" the SSPX is on and if the Pope decides he's in schism, he must be in schism. Michael Voris must be right about that too.  Objective truth be damned.   

That is the accusation that the Neo-Catholics at Catholic Answers have been making for years and years and Bishop Fellay repeats their positions as his own in recent years.


I see no signs of Bp Fellay approving modernism in any form.

He stated that the SSPX can survive under the thumb of modernists in Rome in his letter to the 3 bishops. 

If he's going to be indiscriminately obedient to modernists, he's going to tolerate modernism. 

Quote
  To any casual observer of the events of the past few years, schism has to be a real possibility.

No it doesn't. The real schisms are occurring among those with canonical regularity.  If anything, the SSPX and trads have a greater risk of Neo-Ultramontanism than schism. 

Quote
   The rest of it is again your personal judgment and condemnation of a man whose shoes you would be advised to occupy for a few years before passing judgment upon him.


When a man tells me up is up one day and then later claims it is down, I don't need to walk in his shoes to understand he contradicts himself.  Like Archbishop LeFebvre or Bishop Fellay of yesteryear, I don't need to be Pope to recognize that there is a problem in what the Popes are doing.
[/quote] 

I've just listened to a sermon from this Jan.1 by Bp. Tissier.  All of the fear and fuss contra SSPX is a tempest in a teapot.  The bishop was crystal clear about where the Society stands.  If Bp. Tissier were out of line with Bp. Fellay, we would know about it.
 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3213
  • Thanked: 881 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #183 on: November 03, 2015, 11:48:00 PM »
I've just listened to a sermon from this Jan.1 by Bp. Tissier.  All of the fear and fuss contra SSPX is a tempest in a teapot. 

I disagree. 

Quote
The bishop was crystal clear about where the Society stands.  If Bp. Tissier were out of line with Bp. Fellay, we would know about it.

I'm sure of it.  The problem is Bishop Tissier is in line with Bp. Fellay.   Like Fr. Kennetch Novak, he's a lot of bluster but when push comes to shove, he's not going to take a stand against a compromise with modernist Rome. 

His thinking was clear when he signed onto the original letter of the 3 bishops, but the two of them were cowed. 

As Bishop Williamson said, "Bishop Tissier thinks correctly but doesn't act correctly.  And if you don't act like you think, eventually you are going to think like you act. "
 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 19675
  • Thanked: 4986 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #184 on: November 04, 2015, 01:21:17 AM »
Many of us wondered at the seemingly endless hate and invective poured out against Bishop Fellay, while the elephant in the room was pointedly ignored.

Lionising vagus pederasts, all the while attempting to scatter the sheep with vain attempts to decapitate the shepherd.

Tactics as old as the Church. 

Non praevalebunt.
Yes, the tactics and the demonic results are explicitly detailed in Liber Gomorrhianus[/b.]

Hell hath no fury like a Lavender Mafia scorned.

Many of us wondered at the seemingly endless hate and invective poured out against Bishop Fellay, while the elephant in the room was pointedly ignored.

Lionising vagus pederasts, all the while attempting to scatter the sheep with vain attempts to decapitate the shepherd.

Tactics as old as the Church. 

Non praevalebunt.


Just because you disagree with a group of people does not give you the ability to cast aspersions towards them or denigrate them.
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline perdurabit

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 181
  • Thanked: 42 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #185 on: November 06, 2015, 01:03:33 PM »
Kaesekopf

I don't cast aspersions or denigrate people.

As one example, the history of the Society of St John, its genesis, its leading actors and their current activities are well known and factually documented.  I believe that the court papers are still available online also.

A man who grooms and seduces a minor commits a mortal sin.
 
The following users thanked this post: jovan66102, Elizabeth

Offline matt

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #186 on: April 05, 2016, 09:44:38 AM »
Last weekend saw another Resistance conference in London. This is the group run by a layman (I know it's difficult to keep track of all these splits) with Fr. Pfeiffer and Hewko in attendance.

There is an interesting "sermon" by this layman:

At 32'40" he says:
"Fr. Morgan, a good man, he was talking about the [British] District seceding from the SSPX, I don't think, in the end, he really had enough conviction to do it."

This is the first time I've heard someone in the London Resistance publicly admit that there was, at some point, a plan for the District to separate from the Society.

This seems to give credence to Searchlight's claim:
"The Daily Telegraph published information from our press release, which seemed to have the desired effect. We understand that our actions influenced those clergy involved in the planned coup, including possibly the SSPX's District Superior Father Morgan, to think again. Rather than coming out in support of the extremists at the June Conference, Fr Morgan basically told them to shut up."
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/neo-nazis-the-catholic-church-and-council-property

If that's the case then it's three cheers to Mr. Gables!
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 09:50:44 AM by matt »
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 10295
  • Thanked: 5067 times
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #187 on: April 05, 2016, 11:19:01 AM »
It certainly worries me that Bishop Fellay is talking to Francis.  I haven't got a clue whether they are deal-making or just keeping lines of communication open but between +Fellay's penchant for secrecy and Frank's schizophrenic persona there seems a very real chance that the whole thing could be a giant train wreck.  +Fellay's recent media interview (Conflict Zone) doesn't exactly boost my confidence.

Countering that, however, that the resistance cannot even stay unified for a few short years and that the only bishop they have, +Williamson, they cannot all get along with, suggests to me that they are not the last beacon of 'true Catholicism'.

Call me presumptuous, but I'd expect the Holy Spirit to deliver some super priests with incredible fervor and personalities that would make Donald Trump look like a shrinking violet and Vlad Putin like a beta male.  If you are not going to have quantity at least have quality.

Give me a flipping chance God!  If the beating heart of the Church is reduced to a few good men, then at least make them characters we can admire.

"By their fruits you shall know them".  Well.....on this basis the SSPX win.  No contest.

Between Fr. Pfeiffer, Pablo, Tetherow the child porn ex-priest 'friend' and Bishop Williamson living his sea-side retirement like some sort of clerical version of Charles Dickens I reckon you'd find more initiative and less scandal in the local welfare office.  If you have to pick the RIGHT resistance chapel in order to avoid nonces, despots and crackpots then you might as well stay in the SSPX and take your chances.
 
The following users thanked this post: Frank

Offline St.Justin

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1270
  • Thanked: 360 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #188 on: April 05, 2016, 12:43:55 PM »
You do know:
Bishop Williamson violated Church law when he ordained Fr Jean-Michel Faure, 73, a bishop without papal approval during a ceremony in Nova Friburgo, Brazil, on the feast of St Joseph in 2015 I believe.

So he ain't alone.
 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3213
  • Thanked: 881 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #189 on: April 05, 2016, 03:36:45 PM »
Did any English media outlets cover Bishops Williamson and Faure consecration of Don Thomas of the Dominicans of Avrille?  I think the date came and went with very little uproar or fanfare. 

There are plenty of photos of the event. 

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.mx/2016/03/consagracion-de-dom-tomas-de-aquino-osb.html
 

Offline Compline45

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Thanked: 11 times
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #190 on: April 05, 2016, 03:46:52 PM »
Did any English media outlets cover Bishops Williamson and Faure consecration of Don Thomas of the Dominicans of Avrille?  I think the date came and went with very little uproar or fanfare. 

-edit- sorry, this was from 2015! -edit

Yes, in fact the Guardian had a story about both the consecration and the ordination this past Friday:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/01/brazil-breakaway-catholics-rebel-against-pope-santa-cruz-monastery
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 03:48:46 PM by Compline45 »
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 10295
  • Thanked: 5067 times
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #191 on: April 05, 2016, 04:45:50 PM »
Did any English media outlets

It just occurred to me why they are called media "outlets"

 

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5638
  • Thanked: 2178 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #192 on: April 06, 2016, 10:47:01 AM »
The photos are nice, but the Grauniad article really is a bit poor. The last few paragraphs are moderately correct, but it isn't great stuff. Pope Benedict permitted widespread celebration of 'Latin services.' Summum Pontificum is surely relevant. I strongly suspect there are far more  than one million who hear Mass at SSPX chapels. In France, most practicing Catholics are said to hear Mass at an SSPX chapel (maybe I misheard), maybe not, but likely more than one million, even just in France or the US. Summum Pontificum would not have happened for the sake of one million Catholics.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Galatians I, 4
 

Offline matt

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #193 on: August 12, 2017, 07:34:19 PM »
I actually like Fr. Paul Morgan a lot more than I used to.  He's matured and become a LOT wiser.  10 years ago I thought he was unbalanced.  Were I a betting man, I would have given you odds on he would have joined the resistance.  And the resistance, for a while, seemed to think he would too, but he didn't and for all the right reasons.  There is no deal with Rome so there is nothing to resist other than the conspiracy of a possible future one.

Had a chat with him recently at Herne and it seems that life experience has taught him the wisdom he couldn't get from books or second hand.  Leadership can either make you a tyrant or humble you.

Under the circumstances the loss of 3 priests is not so bad.  They voted with their feet.  Good, let them try their brand of Traditionalism and see how they succeed or fail.

I have to say, with their departure, the SSPX is a much more mentally balanced place to attend mass.  It feels much like it did under Fr. Edward Black.  It's like a giant nutter magnet flew over the chapels and sucked all the nutters away.

Well, a sad day Greg, but two years later, from the D.S. of Canada (via Fr. Rusak):

Dear Faithful,

1. Here is the Statement of the District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X in Canada, Rev. Father Daniel Couture, concerning our former Prior, Rev. Father Paul Morgan, who announced his "resignation from the Society" this week.

I have a sad news to announce to you today:

In spite of all our efforts to convince him to stay with us, Fr. Morgan has announced to us, by email,  last August 10, his decision to leave the Society of St Pius X.  Thus, he will not return to BC and we will have to reorganize our apostolate accordingly to the best of our means.

Let us keep all those priests who have left us in one way or another in our prayers.

Please continue especially to pray for all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X who currently serve you.
 

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 10295
  • Thanked: 5067 times
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: SSPX GB District changes
« Reply #194 on: August 14, 2017, 03:30:09 PM »
He has left the SSPX and joined the Capuchins in Morgon, France who are a Traditionalist order of monks still affiliated with the SSPX.  Like him, they considered joining the resistance, but thought better of it.  Wise of them under the circumstances now, when the resistance mostly just resist each other.

How many people who signed that open letter are actually attending SSPX masses?  Most I think.

Hardly surprising that he made that move.  He was district superior of the UK for years and then sent to oblivion in Canada.  If you demote people and move them around for the sake of it, then it should hardly come as a surprise that they leave.

The SSPX needs better leadership with a clearer mandate as to what they are about. 
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 06:39:27 AM by Greg »
 
The following users thanked this post: Frank, diaduit