|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 20, 2015 6:36:41 GMT 10
source: www.dominicansavrille.us/urgent-message-episcopal-consecration-today-of-fr-faure-by-bishop-williamson/Why a Consecration in 2015?by Dom Thomas Aquinas OSB, superior of the Monastery of Santa Cruz, Brazil
Why a consecration in 2015?
Because the situation remains essentially the same as in 1988. Modernist Rome, which manifested itself at the Council, remains in place and becomes more and more modernist and liberal. The profound perversion of the mind is only intensifying.
But why not wait for the Society of St. Pius X to give us bishops?
Because the authorities of the Society have taken a new direction in relations with Rome.
Do you mean to say that the Society has abandoned the true faith or the fight for the faith?
I mean to say that the leaders of the Society have gradually in recent years, and especially since 2011 and 2012, taken a new direction in their relations with Rome.
But the question is whether or not the Society has abandoned the fight for the faith. What do you think?
The particularity of liberals is inconsistency. The current leaders of the Society have made the fight of the Society inconsistent. The healthy part of the Society is trying to fight this battle as in the past, but the dominant wing, its Superior General at the top with Fr. Pfluger, persecute those who want to continue this fight as before.
Do you have any proof of that?
It is all too abundant. The refusal to ordain the Dominican and Capuchin candidates at the appointed time in 2012 is one. The Benedictines of Bellaigue were also threatened. But much more serious and significant was the scandalous expulsion of Bishop Williamson, preceded by the order to cease the Eleison Comments. In fact Menzingen does not tolerate us opposing its new orientation. Menzingen does not want us to publicly continue the fight for the faith as before, following Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer. The district priests are closely monitored and their articles cannot be published without quite strict permission.
But what harm is there in that? Every institution must monitor what is being said in its name!
Not like that. We must punish those who write against the Catholic faith, but not install a regime like the one Bishop Fellay already did. In addition, those with a liberal tendency have broad permission to write, while the book of Father Pivert is removed from sale. Le Sel de la Terre is frowned upon and removed from press stands. The most faithful priests are disavowed or even punished or expelled. Unfortunately, examples abound. The list is already long enough, while the GREC was able to work peacefully and Father Pflüger gives his scandalous interviews without being disturbed.
But there are good articles in Le Chardonnet, for example. Isn’t it wrong to say that the anti-liberals are persecuted in the Society?
Yes, there are still some good articles in Le Chardonnet, and not only in Le Chardonnet. Unfortunately, this is far from preventing the accordist tendency of Menzingen to move forward.
Do you mean, basically, that Menzingen is betraying the fight for the faith?
Yes, Menzingen is betraying the fight for the faith. That is why a consecration has become necessary to assure the continuity of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, especially as Bishop Fellay now refuses to ordain candidates opposed to his policy, as is the case for several religious communities of men to whom he also refuses the Holy Oils (necessary to baptize children and give extreme unction to the dying).
“We continue,” very simply, as Archbishop Lefebvre used to say. And we believe that good Catholics support us from the bottom of their heart. If we seem to be too hard towards Menzingen, take the time to go through the long series of events that have marked the history of Tradition in recent years and you will see that the two most combative bishops of Tradition were, one, expelled from the Society, the other, silenced, at least in part. Added to this are the iniquitous trials of Fr. Pinaud and Fr. Salenave, and still so many facts.
What do you think about the candidate chosen?
He was chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. He proposed another name. It is to his credit. Today he accepts this heavy burden. We are deeply grateful to him. To conclude, let us also and especially give our gratitude to Bishop Williamson who knew how to protect and transmit the legacy received from the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, which is none other than the deposit of the faith entrusted by Our Lord to the Apostles.
A final appeal: Read the works of Archbishop Lefebvre. Everything is there. Read also the Eleison Comments to understand the seriousness of the current evil. Corçâo said: “Only the saints believe in evil.” Deep words which are a warning. May Our Lady help us to see the evil where it is, to work with her, she who has always crushed the head of the infernal serpent. “Ipsa conteret.” That is the motto of Bishop Jean-Michel Faure. May Our Lady bless him and protect him “ad multos annos”.
March 18, 2015 |
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 20, 2015 16:20:45 GMT 10
Source: stmarcelinitiative.com/email/en-concerning-the-episcopal-consecration-of-fr-jean-michel-faure.htmlConcerning the episcopal consecration of Jean-Michel Faureby the SMI secretary | March 20, 2015Supporters of His Excellency Bishop Williamson, whether readers of Eleison Comments, contributors to the St. Marcel Initiative, or otherwise, have no doubt already heard the news of His Excellency’s consecration of Bishop Jean-Michel Faure at the Monastery of the Holy Cross in New Fribourg, Brazil, on Thursday, the Feast of St. Joseph, March 19. The news was understandably held back until relatively the last minute so as to avoid, as far as humanly possible, any unwelcome disruptions of the ceremony or any other problems that may have arisen in conjunction with it.Nevertheless, now that the consecration has taken place, we are able to make available to the faithful and the world at large the so-called “Emergency Mandate” that was read during the liturgy.As many already know, among the very first spoken words of the Rite of Episcopal Consecration is the statement made to the consecrating bishop by his senior assistant:“Most Reverend Father, our holy Mother the Catholic Church asks that you promote this priest here present to the burden of the episcopate.”In reply, the consecrating bishop asks whether the assistant has the “Apostolic Mandate.”The answer is, “We have,” to which the consecrating bishop replies, “Let it be read.”(Those interested further may consult online a useful Latin and English Ordo, excerpted from the Pontificale Romanum, and published in 1910.)What was read in Thursday’s ceremony in response to Bishop Williamson’s invitation – serving as it did both a liturgical function and as a public explanation of the ceremon y’s rationale as envisioned by the participants – is what follows. Readers may be interested to know that its first paragraphs closely follow the language used by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 30, 1988.MANDTUM APOSTOLICUMWe have a Mandate to consecrate from the Roman Church which in its fidelity to Sacred Tradition received from the Apostles commands us to hand down faithfully that Sacred Tradition – namely the Deposit of the Faith – to all men by reason of their duty to save their souls.
For indeed, on the one hand, the authorities of the Church of Rome from the Second Vatican Council down to today are driven by a spirit of modernism which undermines in depth Sacred Tradition to the point of twisting its very notion: There shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, turning away their hearing from the truth, turning unto fables, as St Paul says to Timothy in his second Epistle (IV, 3,5). What use would it be to ask su ch authorities for a Mandate to consecrate a bishop who is going to be profoundly opposed to their most grave error?
And, on the other hand, to obtain such a bishop the few Catholics who understand his importance might have hoped, even after Vatican II, that he could come from the Society of St Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like the four consecrated for them in 1988 by a previous emergency Mandate. Alas, when the authorities of that Society showed by their constant turning towards the Roman authorities that they were taking the same modernist road, that hope proved to be vain.
From where then could these faithful Catholics obtain the bishops essential to the survival of their true faith? In a world making political war day by day more on God and on His Church, the danger for the Faith seems such that its survival can no longer be left to depend on a single fully anti-modernist bishop. The Church herself asks him to appoint an associate, who will be Father Jean-Michel Faure.
By this handing down of the episcopal power of Orders, no episcopal power of jurisdiction is assumed or granted, and as soon as God intervenes to save His Church, which has no more human hope of rescue, the effects of this consecration and of its emergency Mandate will be without delay put back in the hands of a Pope once more wholly Catholic. |
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 20, 2015 20:02:38 GMT 10
source nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/sermon-de-monsenor-williamson-en-la.htmlBISHOP WILLIAMSON SERMON ON THE RITE OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOP FAURE.-. IN ENGLISHTraduction française ici
Translated into English by Michael cruzadoparalaverdad@gmail.com
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Forgive me that I do not speak Portuguese. I have to speak Spanish instead, and I hope that all will be able to understand. For this very great feast day of St. Joseph, after the Most Holy Virgin, is the greatest of all Catholic saints. And this patron of the Church, well I had not thought particularly in this but the facts is there. And for this feast of the Patron of the Church that we meet here today to look after the consecration of what I suppose we call the Resistance.
Brothers and sisters, the fact is that the Truth, the Truth of God, the Truth of Christ, the Truth of the Church, is today in grave danger. In the first place, of course, there is the 2nd Vatican Council. The fact is that since already some centuries ago, the enemies of God were preparing a new world, what we call today the New World Order. It's a completely different world. And they want this to take the place of the world of God. It is God that has created nature and that has created all of these things. It is not man. God is the Creator of man and the Master of the Universe. The Master of masters, the Lord of lords, the King of kings is God and not man. Saint Pius X has said that "the grave problem of the modern world is that it wants to substitute God." It is true. It wants to take the place of God. And so after some centuries, in the beginning the Church and the popes could not withstand this treachery but the world has constantly handed itself over more and more to the 'glory of man' and has tried to snatch away the Glory of God. And finally being surrounded by men, the Church and the churchmen of are very modern and that is how it came about with the Second Vatican Council. And there the churchmen, the men tried to change the religion of God, and the contamination was there so deeply that the great majority of bishops in the Council went along with trying to end Tradition. Incredible but not incredible for someone that understands just how profound the corruption of the modern world is. This corruption has even penetrated inside the Church and the great majority of churchmen have fallen, particularly the popes: John XXIII, Paul VI and the popes after the Council, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Pope Francis who is the most evidently revolutionary of all of these popes but has participated with the very same principles of his predecessors since the Council. It is like saying that deep down Pope Benedict XVI is just as revolutionary as Francis, but with Francis only it is much more evident. His subjective intentions within him only God can judge, but objectively, objectively they are traitors of the true religion of God. There was one bishop that resisted and remained faithful and today in particular all that are here today appreciate him very much, his character and his faith, his fidelity to Our Lord, Our Lord of the true religion of God: Archbishop Lefebvre of course. And without him we would not be here today. It is evident. And what he did at the end with his resistance was exactly his consecration of 4 bishops in 1988. And when he preached in that ceremony he said that what we are doing here is "Operation Survival" instead of "Operation Suicide". If we had made a compromise with the Second Vatican Council, if we had made this compromise we would have committed the suicide of the resistance to it. So that our resistance, the good resistance to the lie, the good resistance to the lie and the resistance that maintains the Truth, we must never forget this. And he was saying that if we also make this compromise with the Council it would be Operation Suicide, and instead we consecrate bishops to secure Operation Survival of the Faith, of the Truth, in a world of lies where there is no truth, in a world of lies, the deceit, the treachery, we commit the act of consecrating bishops to defend the Truth, for the reason of defending the Truth. If the Catholic Faith was not the true, we would not be Catholics, the reason is that it is the Truth, and the Truth, of course, is the Faith, the Catholic Faith.
And today what are we doing? It is nothing more than the extension in modern times, that is 25 years later, the extension of Operation Survival. It is nothing more. It is like saying in a certain sense, we are only repairing the emergency light of Archbishop Lefebvre. There was the Church with its great human, electronic light and this light was turned off and Archbishop Lefebvre turned on the emergency light and now with the SSPX, today the Society is also giving in to the compromise of the Second Vatican Council. They want to associate themselves or they want to be united with the Romans, they want to follow the Romans. The Society has not yet died, it is not yet dead, but it is dying on the road it is headed down. Maybe it will leave this path and return to the path of Archbishop Lefebvre, that is the way of defending Truth. That it may return to defend the Truth. But so many men today have lost the Truth and it is the fundamental element of the crisis of the modern world. Men have lost the sense of the Truth. Because Truth is the correspondence between my soul and reality, and modern man lives his virtual life in a bourgeois way. All of these phones and technology have created a plastic, artificial world and the sense of the Truth is lost! There is a lack of peasants with sane judgement to live through what is to come. And what is being done by the Church today, today the falsehood and the way that the Society wants to take is a falsehood. But they do not see it. They do not see it. So we have to play the role of repairers of the emergency light. It is not a glorious role! We do not save the Church! We do not have that pretension. In no way whatsoever do we have the pretension of saving the Church. No, no, no! Only God can save His Church today and He will do it. And in His time and His terms. But up until now God is purifying His Church and He wants us to do what we can to save and maintain the treasures of the Church in order to be able to hand them over once more when the churchmen will have been truly corrected and enlightened by God. And He will do it but probably by means of an unimaginable chastisement because the momentum of the grave reality, of destitution, of the grave world of modern man is only leaving reality and if it doesn't happen everything remains a dream, a dreamworld. And so we do what we can.
We are thankful to Father prior, Fr. Thomas Aquinas OSB, for this beautiful ceremony, and this makeshift, metal cathedral. Such a great improvisation. And that is how it is said, where there is a will there is a way. And if we desire to remain faithful to God, He will find us in the right path. It is impossible that God abandons souls that have not abandoned Him. That means that it is not God that abandons us. It can only be us if we abandon Him. That God may impede it! We are thankful to Father. We are thankful to the sisters that have worked so much to constitute this improvised cathedral. We are thankful to the monks that have also worked so hard to help bring about this ceremony and have done very well. And that is how it is. Tomorrow and after tomorrow maybe there will be more treachery, so very possible, if things continue as they are headed it is very possible, but it does not matter. Each day keep going. Today we will continue being faithful and we are very thankful for all who have came, some from very far away. Forgive me that we did not want to publicize the fact beforehand, but we wanted to secure and protect the ceremony. We wanted to protect the ceremony from any impediments that could have arisen because not everyone likes this ceremony. It is very evident. And we actually expect that the devil detests this ceremony. So then the devil has many servants, and they might have been able to impede this ceremony. We could have waited and asked for a sign from Divine Providence like Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988. In particular, for me it seems that the Church can not substitute bishops that can ordain priests and confirm adults and children.
So then, in the political situation of today of which the 3rd world war can come about at any moment, with some recent news from my country, England, that weapons of mass destruction have been prepared a long time ago to be dropped on Russia. It is madness! Madness. But men are insane and these liberals have the instinct of suicide, and the third world war is a ceramic product of this instinct of suicide. And it will come about, and when it happens it is absolutely unable to know how the events will play out. And in this case, to only ordain and confirm seems to me to be something irresponsible. The world is not calm. It is very unstable and destabilized. We do not know how things will turn out. So then without publicity, without looking for glory in any way whatsoever, without wanting to gain attention from the world, in contrast, at least myself, I want only to hide from the limelight after this ceremony as much as possible without any pretension whatsoever. We are doing this in order to defend the Church.
Beloved faithful, beloved priests, and there are even priests from afar, the United States for example, others from all over Latin America, we pray to Saint Joseph, the great Saint Joseph so that he aids us, he who is most faithful, his example of faithfulness and protection and of lack of publicity, we don't want publicity, do the best that one can do, We ask Saint Joseph that everyone, each one of us according to his vocation in life, understands how to remain faithful and strictly to the Son of God and His Most Holy Mother, the Most Holy Virgin.
In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 20, 2015 20:59:32 GMT 10
Videos and Photos of the Consecration on March 19th 2015The Entry Procession Receiving the Bishop's mitre and bishop's first blessings Sermon of HE Bishop Richard Williamson at the Episcopal consecration of Rev. Fr. Jean Michel Faure at the Monastery of the Holy Cross, Nova Friburgo/RJ – Brazil. Sermão do S.E.R. Dom Richard Williamson na Sagração Episcopal do Rev. Pe. Jean Michel Faure no Mosteiro da Santa Cruz, Nova Friburgo/RJ – Brasil. Same Sermon but from a different angle. (looks at the various people +Williamson refers to) Photos: source: nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/consagracion-de-monsenor-jean-michel.html#more Photo example  and  More Pictures here tradcatknight.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/photos-of-consecration-of-bishop-faure.html
|
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 20, 2015 21:12:48 GMT 10
English translation source www.therecusant.com/fr-faure-interview-2015“Exclusive Interview with Fr. Faure” BY “Non Possumus” 18th March 2015
Source: nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/entrevista-exclusiva-al-rp-faure.html
How about a little history to begin, Father: how did you get to know Tradition and Archbishop Lefebvre?
In 1968, in Argentina, I visited the Archbishop of Paraná, who said to me: “Do you want to defend Tradition? At the Council I defended it together with a brave Bishop, a friend of mine, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.” That was the first time I had heard of Archbishop Lefebvre. I went to look for Archbishop Lefebvre in Switzerland in 1972, during Holy Week and there I met him.
Where were you born? Why were you living in South America?
I was born in Algeria and my family, after independence, acquired a plot of land in Argentina, close to Paraná. My family was deported from Algeria because the French government surrendered power to the militant Muslims who committed horrendous massacres during the course of the process of the independence. My grandparents, parents and uncles were farmers there since 1830.
Returning to the story, how your apostolate in the Society come about?
Archbishop Lefebvre ordained me in 1977 in Écône, and 15 days later I accompanied him on a trip through the southern United States, Mexico (where the government refused our entry), Colombia, Chile, and Argentina. The Archbishop put me in charge of starting-up the apostolate in this region. During the first year two Argentinian priests helped me and the following year another Spanish priest (of the SSPX). After this the South American district was created with myself in charge and I began to preach retreats as far north as Mexico. In the first year about 12 vocations were put up in the Buenos Aires priory, which was in a large enough house. Then by 1980 the seminary of La Reja (Buenos Aires) was built, where Archbishop Lefebvre appointed me rector. There I stayed until 1985, when I was named superior of the District of Mexico. That was when we built the churches in Mexico City and Guadalajara. I looked after the different parts of this country together with Frs. Calderon, Angles, and Tam. Then I spent a few years in France. After that I was appointed to the Seminary in Argentina as a history professor and I was there until the expulsion of Bishop Williamson from Argentina (2009).
Did Archbishop Lefebvre confide in you?
Archbishop Lefebvre gave me free access to his mail and correspondence and he put me in charge of certain cases. He had a certain kind of trust for me: in 1977 in Albano he asked me what I thought about consecrations. On another occasion, also in 1977, he confided to me “They are waiting for me” (the rector professors of Écône). They would suggest accepting the New Mass and the Council in order to preserve the Tridentine Mass. They said to him: “Now we are in confrontation with Rome. If we want to preserve the (Tridentine) Mass we must accept the Council.” They wanted the Archbishop to retire to a beautiful house in Germany, but he told them that they were free to leave if they wanted to. He threw them out.
Is it true that Archbishop Lefebvre asked you to accept being consecrated a bishop?
In 1986, while on a visit to Écône, he called me aside after a meal and asked me if I would accept being consecrated a bishop. In view of what happened, maybe I should have accepted.
So you did not accept?
I told him that I thought Bishop De Galarreta would be more suitable.
Can you summarize what happened in 2012?
In that year we were very close to an agreement and it failed at the last moment, probably, due to the Williamson affair. The agreement failed because of that matter and the letter of the three bishops. Both of those things undermined the agreement.
It is said that the key to Bishop Fellay’s ad intra strategy was getting the backing of the General Chapter. Can you tell us something about that?
The General Chapter was very well prepared by Bishop Fellay and the they (the accordistas) achieved their objectives. That was when I understood what had happened to Archbishop Lefebvre and his friends at the Second Vatican Council. He (Bishop Fellay) had decided on a policy of getting closer to Rome and he managed to get the general support of the Chapter in expelling Bishop Williamson, who was the only one capable of obstructing this policy.
What, in your opinion, should be the conditions required for making an agreement with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre told us that as long as there were no real changes in Rome a deal would be impossible, because these people were not loyal, and one cannot expect to change one's superiors. It is the cat that chases the mouse and not the mouse that chases the cat. An agreement would be tantamount to handing oneself over into the hands of the modernists, and thus it must be absolutely rejected. It is impossible. We must wait for God to intervene.
Can you tell us what you think the preliminary visits of various modernist prelates to the Seminaries of the Society? Is it true that once Archbishop Lefebvre received some prelates? What is the difference now?
These were exceptional visits during which Cardinal Gagnon never had the opportunity of defending the Council, whereas these visits now are the first steps of a reintegration (of the SSPX) into the conciliar church.
How do you view an eventual unilateral recognition of the SSPX on the part of Rome?
It is a trap.
Between the 2006 chapter and the start of the crisis in 2012, a change of attitude by the SSPX authorities towards Rome can be seen. What is the reason for this change?
It is due to the SSPX superiors’ decision to “reintegrate” themselves into the conciliar church. Since 1994 or 1995 the GREC meetings took place which were significant steps towards a reconciliation, as intended by ambassador Pérol (French ambassador in Italy), and he was the inventor of the lifting of the excommunications (2009) and the Motu Proprio (2007). That must be matched by a recognizing of the Council.
What would Archbishop Lefebvre do in the current situation?
He would continue along the path that he showed us after the consecrations, absolutely discarding any possibility of an agreement.
If in the future you were invited to go to Rome and speak with the Pope, would you go? What would you say?
First, I would consult with all our friends in the Resistance. I would go with Bishop Williamson and the other excellent priests who are fighting the Resistance combat with great courage. And I would keep all our friends well-informed with total transparency.
Bishop Fellay has said that the SSPX agrees with 95% of Vatican II. What do you think of that?
Archbishop Lefebvre answered that the whole Council is imbued with a subjectivist spirit that is not Catholic.
Francis is proving an effective demolisher of the Church and objective destroyer of the Faith. Is he a true pope?
In my opinion, it cannot be said that Francis is worse than Paul VI, who first steered the Church onto a new course, and so we must preserve the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre, a prudential attitude that excluded sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre always refused to ordain a seminarian who was sedevacantist. And that was the policy of the SSPX until his death. So don’t come to us with: “The Archbishop said this or said that.”
What is the state of your process of expulsion from the SSPX?
The latest update is that I found in an email, by accident, a second monition. From tomorrow, therefore, the Society of St. Pius X will again have four bishops! They had better throw me out quickly! Deo gratias!
This decision of consecrating a bishop must have been pondered and meditated on for a long time. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre, you, Bishop Williamson and the priests of the Resistance did not want to be collaborators in the destruction of the Church. It is to preserve the Faith intact that you have been persecuted, condemned and slandered so many times. Your episcopal consecration may earn you an alleged excommunication. What were the main reasons for carrying out this consecration?
The main reason is that that we cannot leave the Resistance without bishops. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre said, Catholic bishops are indispensable for the preservation of the true doctrine of the Faith and the sacraments.
Archbishop Lefebvre thought about consecrating you a bishop and now Bishop Williamson is able to fulfil that wish. What will be your main concern?
Striving to maintain the work of Archbishop Lefebvre on the path he traced, without deviating to the right or to the left.
Where will your place of residence be?
In France where we plan to open a seminary close to the Dominicans of Avrillé.
Would you like to say any words to the priests and faithful that are still inside the structure of the Society but who are worried by the liberal drift of the last few years?
Let them re-read and meditate upon the texts of their founder.
Can you explain to us the essence of your coat of arms?
In the centre is the Lamb of the Apocalypse, the Alpha and the Omega, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, announced by Isaiah. The hearts recall the Vendeé martyrs of the revolution and the Fleur de Lys is the emblem of Catholic France. The motto, “ipsa cónteret” (“she shall crush”) is taken from the Vulgate, Genesis 3,15 where God promises the victory of the Virgin Mary over the dragon.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
Let us preserve Faith, Hope, and Charity. We must not doubt and we must ask God and Our Lady to keep us in these virtues.
Father, we give deepest thanks to God, to His Most Holy Mother, and to St. Joseph protector of the Church for this great grace. We pray God that He preserve and keep you. We thank you for having accepted this tremendous burden and we thank Bishop Williamson for consecrating you as one of the successors of the Apostles. Deo Gratias! |
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 21, 2015 12:57:05 GMT 10
Videos of Sermon Responses by Resistance Priests
To the Consecration of Rev. Fr. Jean Michel Faure,
Under the hands of H.E. Bishop Richard Williamson
On March 19, 2015 - Feast of the Glorious St. Joseph
VIDEO 1:- Fr. Chazal- Feast of St.Joseph, Thanksgiving Mass Sermon
At the Bamboo Chapel of the Heart of JESUS & MARY Seminary, Phil. on 19Mar2015
VIDEO 2:- Fr. Pfeiffer - Passion Sunday Sermon
At the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Seminary, USA on 22Mar2015
VIDEO 3:- Fr. Hewko - Conference on Bishop Faure Consecration
at St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada on 22Mar2015
VIDEO 4:- Fr. Hewko - Passion Sunday Sermon
at Italian Canadian Club of Milton, Ontario, Canada on 22Mar2015
|
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 21, 2015 19:10:43 GMT 10
Condemnations of the Act of Consecration.Brisbane's Indult Priest responds to The Consecration of Bishop Faure
source freestatevoice.com.au/"EXCOMMUNICATION OF BISHOP. Bishop Richard Williamson, previously heading the North American Region of the Society of St. Pius X, was ordained (sic) Bishop with 3 others by Archb. Marcel Lefebre (sic) in 1988, all thus incurring automatic excommunication since it was not approved by the Holy Father. His ordination (sic) was valid, but not licit. Bishop Williamson, as Englishman who converted to Catholicism was and is an extremist. His excommunication was lifted by Benedict XVI as a first step towards rapprochement for the St. Pius X society with the Catholic Church. Unfortunately Bishop Williamson rejected any talk of reconciliation and he was finally ousted from the Society of St. Pius X 2013. He ordained (sic) Fr. Jean-Luc Faure a bishop in Brazil on Thursday last. The Feast of St. Joseph, thus incurring a renewed excommunication ipso facto. The other St. Pius X bishops in principle remain in dialogue with the Vatican with a view to reconciliation, and re-integration in the Church. I believe we should do all we can to help the process, first and foremost by our prayers, but in any other way we can by extending the hand of friendship towards those who lead or attend their Church here at Oxley.” Printed in the MISSA Pamphlet, “Latin Mass Community” Brisbane, Passion Sunday, and Signed off by Fr. Gregory Jordan, S.J.
A communique has been issued by the SSPX in response to Bishop Williamson's consecration of Fr. Faure.source fsspx.org/en/publications/newsletters/consecration-fr-jean-michel-faure-7443Consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel FaureCommuniqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure.
On March 19, 2015, Bishop Richard Williamson performed the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure at the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Nova Friburgo, Brazil. Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre. The Society of St. Pius X regrets sincerely that this spirit of opposition has led to an episcopal consecration. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly indicated his intention to consecrate auxiliary bishops who would have no jurisdiction, because of the state of necessity in which the Society of St. Pius X and faithful Catholics found themselves at that time. His sole goal was to make available to the faithful the sacraments which priests ordained by the bishops would offer. After having done everything conceivable to gain permission from the Holy See, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded with the solemn consecrations on June 30, 1988 before several thousand priests and faithful and hundreds of journalists from around the world. It was abundantly clear from all the circumstances that, despite the lack of authorization from Rome, this action done in the most public manner was for the good of the Church and of souls. The Society of St. Pius X denounces this episcopal consecration of Fr. Faure, which, despite the assertions of both clerics concerned, is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988. All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner. The Society of St. Pius X still maintains that the present state of necessity renders legitimate its action throughout the world, without denying the legitimate authority of those for whom it continues to pray at every Mass. The Society intends to continue its work of priestly formation according to its statutes. It has every intention to keep the deposit of the Faith and the purity of the Church’s moral teaching, in opposition to errors, from wherever they may come, in order to pass on such Faith and morals in the traditional liturgy and by preaching, in accordance with the missionary spirit of its founder: Credidimus caritati [1 John 4:16]. Menzingen, March 19, 2015
|
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 21, 2015 19:44:35 GMT 10
Source respicestellam.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/the-sermon-of-fr-bruno-osb-on-19th-march-2015/
The Sermon of Fr Bruno OSB on 19th March 2015
20 March, 2015 respicestellam
We are happy to be able to provide a speedy translation of an excellent sermon given by Fr Bruno OSB on the feast of St Joseph to the faithful in the Vendée and we would encourage all to read it. We also look forward to receiving a visit from Fr Bruno on Low Sunday at Earlsfield.
Here is his sermon –
The Gift of Saint Joseph.
We have never doubted the generosity of our good St. Joseph, but on 19th March 2015 we are especially delighted: the holy gift of Joseph is … a bishop! In a few hours, Father Jean-Michel Faure becomes Bishop Faure, consecrated by Bishop Williamson. This Mass is celebrated for the happy chosen one. The Consecration ceremony will begin at 9 am in Brazil, that is 1 pm at home. I should be there right now, but I could not make (heartache!) the trip. Fr Emmanuel-Marie represents the Dominican community, Fr. Pivert from the Priestly Union of Marcel Lefebvre.
The Consecration was planned long ago, but it remained secret almost until the last moment to avoid the unleashing of the media and other enemies of the Church who could try to stop the ceremony,.against Bishop Williamson.
The Consecration will take place at the Benedictine Monastery of Santa Cruz, Brazil. The Superior, Father Thomas Aquinas, is a veteran in the fight against the ‘ralliement': he had to successively separate himself from Le Barroux in 1988; Campos in 2002 and SSPX in 2012. It is a grace for him and for his community that this ceremony will take place in Santa Cruz. I will give you after Mass the text “Why a Consecration in 2015?
I will also give you a document of Father Faure himself, which dates from eighteen months ago (September 2013), but is still useful: “The Captain of the Titanic will sink us! ” A little note here: the Titanic disaster occurred on the night of 14th to 15th April 1912. The ship struck an iceberg on the night of 14th April 1914 at 11.45 pm, and sank at about 2 am on 15th April. In 2012, one hundred years to the day after the wreck, was Bishop Fellay’s response to the three other bishops, on 14th April, and the disastrous doctrinal statement of 15th April …
A few words about Fr. Faure: He is 73 years old (he turns 74 in August). He is a ‘pied-noir’, who experienced the tragedy of 1960-62 [in Algeria]. The good Lord was thus preparing Fr Faure for the combat of our present time, his experience (painful experience!) that leaders can betray us …
He entered Ecône in 1972 and was ordained in 1977. Immediately Archbishop Lefebvre gave him the task to found the Latin American District of SSPX. He was then Director of the Latin American Seminary (La Reja) and Superior of the District of Mexico. He was very close to Archbishop Lefebvre, who had great confidence in him; so much that in 1986, the Archbishop wanted to consecrate him bishop. He was thinking of three bishops: Fr. Tissier, Fr. Williamson and Father Faure. But Father Faure, in humility, preferred not to accept this charge, and instead proposed Fr de Galarreta … As for the fourth bishop, it was some Swiss people who put pressure on Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate a Swiss priest. Perhaps the Archbishop did not have much choice, he chose Fr. Fellay. (When the canonization of Archbishop Lefebvre is under investigation, the devil’s advocate will have at least one thing to say that Bishop had yielded to pressure from the Swiss, with the consequences we know today …)
The choice of Father Faure by Bishop Williamson shows that this Consecration of 19th March 2015 is a continuation of the Consecrations of 30th June 1988: it is a new phase of “Operation Survival” in the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in his sermon on 30th June, and this corresponds to a new phase of the crisis in the Church, namely the crisis in the Tradition (the crisis in the crisis). The last bastion of fidelity has been betrayed by its leaders, who managed to bring along the great majority of priests and faithful to their liberal direction, so that today the SSPX is dying. Those who deny or minimize the crisis in Tradition cannot understand this Consecration of 19th March, just as those who denied or downplayed the crisis in the Church could not understand the Consecration of 1988.
I add that I have personally known Fr. Faure for about a year: he is both very strong and very good (two important qualities). He is very attached to Archbishop Lefebvre, his example, his teaching, his spirit. I can say that it is a great joy for the Priestly Union of Marcel Lefebvre that one of its members was chosen by Bishop Williamson. Joy all the greater for the priests and French faithful that Father Faure will settle in France, near Avrillé to start a seminary. The coat of arms of the new bishop has a lily in honour of Catholic France and two hearts in memory of the Vendéen martyrs.
It is a grace that the Consecration takes place on the feast of St. Joseph, St. Joseph is a beautiful model for our new bishop. In the Office today, there is a very short text where St. Joseph is praised as a “faithful man” and as a “guardian”. To these two titles one must add his title of principal glory, which defines it: it is the “husband of the Virgin Mary.” Faithful man, guardian, spouse of the Virgin Mary:
1) True Man: St. Joseph is a model of fidelity (in litanies, we pray “Joseph most faithful”). He was faithful to the mission he received from God to be the head of the Holy Family; faithful to the deposit that God has entrusted to him, his two greatest treasures, that is to say, his Son and his Mother, Our Lord and Our Lady. He remained faithful in the most difficult circumstances, in persecution.
The bishop must also be true: fidelis inveniatur is the motto of Bishop Williamson (“he be found faithful”). We must pray “Joseph most faithful” to obtain the grace of a great fidelity for our new bishop: that he remains faithful, whatever the trials and difficulties in the tragic situation where the Holy Church is today.
2) Guardian: St. Joseph was chosen by God to be the “guardian of his Lord,” in the words I quoted the versicle (Jesus was at the same time both God and adopted son of St. Joseph). To be equally the “guardian of the Most Pure Virgin,” as the litany says. And he is still the “protector of Holy Church,” the guardian of the Church. We must rejoice this day that there shall, in a while, a new Catholic Bishop for Holy Church!
The bishop must also be a guardian: Episcopus is the one who “watches over” who watches over his flock, who protects and keeps his flock, and knows a portion of Holy Church. Saint Joseph is the guardian of all the Church, the bishop is the guardian of a portion of the Church. He must not only look after his flock, but also all that is necessary for the life of his flock, above all Doctrine and the Sacraments. But first of all Doctrine, the deposit of faith: it is to a young bishop, Timothy, that St. Paul recommended to “keep the deposit” (depositum custodi) and “fight the good fight of faith.” If Fr. Faure is now Bishop Faure, it is primarily to keep, without weakness at any time or weakening, the deposit of sacred Truth, fight the good fight of faith, in the wake of St. Pius X, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer … against all modern errors, especially against this conciliar spirit that destroyed the Church and the ‘conciliatory’ spirit destroying tradition.
3) Spouse of the Virgin Mary. St. Joseph is through that role the great model of Marian devotion. After Our Lord, no-one better knew, loved and served the Blessed Virgin than St. Joseph.
Our new Bishop wants to place his Episcopate under the special protection of the Immaculate Virgin, choosing as his episcopal motto that of Bishop de Castro Mayer: Ipsa conteret.
‘Ipsa conteret caput tuum': She shall crush thy head. This, in Genesis, is God’s response to Satan after original sin. Satan believed himself the winner after having made our first parents fall, but God tells him of his defeat, and that his defeat inflicted on him by a creature, a woman, the new Eve, the Immaculate Conception. “She will crush thy head”
This is a fighting motto: our new bishop, who will guide and lead us in the fight, places himself under the command of one St Louis Marie de Montfort calls “the General of the Armies of God,” the Virgin victorious over all heresies, opposed to error and compromise.
With thanks to St Joseph for giving us a new bishop on his feast day. Ask him to protect him, to fortify him, to be always faithful, to be a good “guardian” and be very devoted to Our Lady: Ipsa conteret!
|
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 23, 2015 16:31:36 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 24, 2015 9:35:35 GMT 10
This response is from a brother at the Holy Cross Monastery,....[translated] Source: brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2015/03/a-bishop-in-action-brother-from-holy.htmlA Bishop in Action: a brother from the Holy Cross Monastery
A Bishop In Action By a Benedictine brother of the Holy Cross Monastery.
Translated by Michael at cruzadoparalaverdad@gmail.com (original in Portuguese here. ) A bishop in action A greatly anticipated event By a Benedictine brother of the Holy Cross Monastery, Nova Friburgo, Brazil In the Benedictine monastery of Nova Friburgo, an event can take us all by surprise! Such an event can shake some, scare others, surprise many, give hope to others, in particular, and give much hope for many of the traditional Catholic faithful in Brazil and the world. But ultimately, what is this event that may cause such a big impact? It is important, very important. We will have an episcopal consecration! Yes, my dear faithful, it seems that Providence guided us to this. It seems that we will have the grace, honor, and the privilege of having a consecration in our monastery. On this day, this great and beautiful ceremony will be marked forever in the memory and history of each of us as an indelible mark of faith and charity. But many could criticize us, they might object saying – “What a scandal, why did it come to this? What is the need? What for? Why the need for more testimonies ... What do you think?" To these criticisms and objections we respond with the following: Firstly, what we are doing is for the honor and greater glory of God; Secondly, for the good of souls; thirdly, for the safety and care of the Resistance. Yes, my dear friends, our fight is for tradition, our combat is the defense of the Catholic faith, our fight is the immutable doctrine, the liturgy of all times, the everlasting sacraments, the incorruptibility of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre through the development of the Priestly Union of his most faithful children. And they continue, despite the weaknesses and deficiencies, with God's grace and the help of the Most Holy Virgin the great task of fighting for Christ the King, the firm and enduring blockade that is the Resistance. From another angle, our struggle has been and will continue to be, always, against any pernicious error that threatens the rights of God and the Church, our fight is maintained against any liberalism and its expanding variations, it is openly spreading all over the place, trying to penetrate even into Catholic circles. Such penetration endangers our faith, endangers the precious virtue of faith. Now, and is this not what happens to those who come into contact, direct or indirect, with liberals and modernists? They end up in one way or another, sooner or later, quickly or slowly letting themselves become infected by a non-Catholic spirit, by a subversive spirit. An example of this was the disaster of Second Vatican Council and its terrible fruits - ecumenism: meeting of Assisi, religious freedom: proliferation of sects, collegiality: dissemination of hierarchical authority, etc. Already very evident, "non possumus", we cannot approach the current Rome without first witnessing its conversion, without first seeing Rome make a clear and public profession of the integrity of the Catholic faith. We are not naive, however their aggressive attacks are not as blatant, they are smart, they know how to wait, wait for the right moment to strike, to impose their will. They know how to wait, like an old fox of the woods - experienced and skilled in its business - which is hidden in the bush waiting for the victim to go to spring on it and have it in its claws, between his teeth. While the adulterous and conciliar Protestant Rome persists in its error in its conduct, maintaining a distance is necessary: distance of its liberalism, its liberalism, its apparent farce of Catholicism. There is a necessity of maintaining distance. And what do we see in the Society in recent times? The misconduct that the Neo-SSPX is doing is an approach with Rome that creates connections that awaken and stimulate reconciliation, a regularization. But without the return of Rome the Holy Faith, this is impossible, it is unthinkable, it is to go against the principles that guide the foundation of the Society. It would be a going with what is unacceptable. And therefore, it will never be able to restore all things in Christ, "Instaurare omnia in Christo". Like it or not, the fact is - the Society is already striding down the slope of openness to the world, to liberalism, with very human visions of theological issues, the doctrinal problems, and extending calmly and slowly its arm with the pen in hand to sign the papers of a future agreement. But sooner or later is it likely to come out with a deal? Only God knows. We speculate that it is probable, that it is predictable, it is not impossible. What to do? Do good, avoid evil. Wait and see what happens. The time and prayer will tell us, but and above all, pray a lot, as a bishop wisely says- 15 mysteries every day - so that the worst does not happen and evil does not triumph. Warning: It (the Society) is already dispersing the little flock that is fighting modern errors, diverting the armies of Tradition by crooked ways. The few faithful sheep are already in company with the ravening wolves. Great care is required. And the Resistance what will it do about all this that is happening? Act, react, take action in response - with: Operation Consecration! It is a daring, risky petulance, but it is necessary. I hear the voices soar ... I hear the echo agitators, arguing - What recklessness! What schismatic spirit, acting without reason, without seeing the consequences of their actions, that lack of judgment and discernment. Surely not! We believe that there is no better way to judge such a thing as an act of obligation before God and our good companions - priests, religious, faithful. We are confident, and confidence, according to St. Thomas, is a hope strengthened by solid conviction that our trust is in God and Our Lady. Not in our mere and little strength because human things are weak and feeble, but in the aid and approval of our Father and our heavenly Mother. Now, more than ever, now what we want, what we need are truly Catholic bishops, bishops faithful to the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre, the legacy of Bishop De Castro Mayer, to save valuable treasures of Catholic orthodoxy, doctrinal integrity which is nothing if not fidelity to tradition. They (the bishops) in being confirmed in the faith, ensure the doctrine, to pass on what has been received. Already in our position regarding the approach to Conciliar Rome - we have and will continue to have a position of distance, a necessary maintenance of distance, but observant, constant but weary of the occupied, progressive Rome that corrupted the eternal notion of Truth, committed adultery with the faith, the sacraments, the liturgy, theology in almost all its entirety. Without its return to the One Catholic faith in its entirety and amplitude we cannot have accord, we cannot unite, we cannot put ourselves under an authority that has lost the perennial faith, an authority that has lost the immutable truth. They are unreliable, however well-intentioned they are not credible. The progressive trend is dangerous, and everywhere they tried to slay the reign of Christ the King, let the souls be lost, descristianize the world. These are the things they want, after all, are they not the worst enemies (modernists) of the Church? We have to oppose it and battle in the opposite direction. Working for Christ the King, for his kingship, for the salvation of souls and Christianization of society. These are our goals. And Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Mayer did not think different! For them this was the course, the goal, the path to go, with the help of Providence and the Immaculate. Our line is already drawn, our position is already signed, signed on the rock, our position is that of Archbishop Lefebvre, it is the same of St. Pius X, it is that of Bishop Williamson, it is the position of Our Lord Jesus Christ, it is they whom we follow and we will not turn away or desist. We resist! Resistant! Resistance! We will not hand over our weapons. And what is our greatest weapon? The armor of faith. That St Joseph aids us through the intercession of the Virgin Mary. Episcopal consecration - Monastery of the Holy Cross, Nova Friburgo / RJ - Brazil Time: 09:00 am Elected: Rev. Jean Michel Faure. The hands of H.E. Bishop Richard Williamson Date: March 19, 2015 - Feast of the Glorious St. Joseph, Spouse of the Virgin Mary and the Church Universal Shield Salve Maria, guardian of the Faith! Viva Cristo Rey! |
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 24, 2015 9:37:11 GMT 10
Source www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2015/03/21/a-note-of-gratitude-to-his-excellency-bishop-williamson/A Note of Gratitude to His Excellency, Bishop WilliamsonMar 21, 2015Excommunicated, again, they proclaim,
but their claim bares not shame.
You have not the evidence of a pontifical mandate, they maintain.
Rubbish, you declare.
The pontifical mandate is all too clear,
and it is something to fear.
You have not home under the perishable dome.
It is Saturn who lives and reigns in Rome.
Truth deniers hate the Faith,
and wish to seal your fate.
Endeavor they to destroy the Faith,
through clever ploys and decoys.
Mourn you not,
for the battle will be fought
and all evil brought to naught.
The good Archbishop joyfully gazes from above, but sighs:
Of faithful sons (1) and excommunications from the con-sillier church, for each,
I have but one!
Well done, faithful son.
Suffer thee three, as the state of necessity be,
for He Who lives and reigns, eternally.
Deo Gratias
1) Only one of the four who were consecrated a bishop by His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in 1988.
Sister Michaela Raphaela TOSF AKA: Patricia MacLean |
|
|
|
Post by Webmaster! on Mar 29, 2015 23:45:33 GMT 10
source archbishoplefebvrecontramundum.blogspot.ca/2015/03/capitalizing-on-opportunity-in-menzingen.htmlSunday, March 22, 2015 Regarding the Letter "Striking Contrast" from Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX)Long-time American diplomat and former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, was known to have said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." By this, he meant that the confusion and perplexity subsequent to significant and unexpected events allows an opportunity to push through measures and policies which, without the benefit of the distraction provided by the crisis, would otherwise not find enough support to pass.
American politicians have made such efficient use of this tactic so as to spawn suspicion that some of these crises are now deliberately "manufactured" in what are called "false flag operations" to push through policies which otherwise would not have enough broad-based support. Examples of such crises (whether naturally occuring or false flag) would be: 911 (to tighten government control over its subjects and remove civil liberties under the pretext of fighting terrorism); the "Holocaust" (to create an Israeli state in Palestine as international and worldwide banking headquarters, under the pretext of protecting the Jewish people from another "genocide;" The Sandy Hook Massacre (Used by advocates of gun control to pass Draconian restrictive gun laws, up to and including banning private possession by law abiding citizens, and imposing imprisonment for refusal to comply); etc.
You get the technique: "How can we use this situation to progress our ambitions?" is the tactic Kissinger taught the world.
Of course, the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure is anything BUT a crisis to the faithful Catholics still following the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre (and therefore of all the saints, Fathers, Doctors, popes, and Our Lord Jesus Christ). Rather, it is a Godsend which has guaranteed the preservation of Tradition, regardless of what Menzingen and unconverted Rome work out going forward. But if you are one of the anesthetized zombies in the pews, mesmerized by seven years of branding and conferences like "Resistance to What?," then the consecration is likely something which catches you a bit off balance.
Per Kissinger, how can Menzingen use this to their advantage?
It is becomming apparent that Menzingen is using the March 19 consecration of Bishop Faure to further its agenda of achieving a practical accord with unconverted Rome. What is for them (and Rome) a "crisis" (because tradition has eluded their capture), is to us a great cause of joy. Yet the strategy appears to be to contrive distinctions between the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and 2015, in an attempt to show Rome just how "different" they have become from the members of the Resistance and the "old SSPX" (while simultaneously trying to reassure their clergy and faithful that they are still the same old SSPX, and still following in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre).
The latest attempt comes from long-time accordist, Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX - Singapore). After posting it here, we will follow with an evaluation of the reasons adduced for the "distinctions," in order to appraise their weight and value:
"A Striking Contrast by Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX - Singapore)
So there you have it. What now to make of these arguments? Let us progress through them systematically and methodically, making sure to address each, so as to be able to offer a conclusion regarding the cumulative weight of the primary thesis: That there is a striking contrast between the circumstances which gave rise to, and justified, the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
The first attempt at contrasting the 1988 and 2015 consecrations offered by Fr. Laisney is that, whereas the SSPX had received canonical approval from Bishop Charriere, thereby legitimizing the Society, Bishop Williamson has neither a "society" properly speaking, nor canonical approval.
My immediate response to this line of argumentation is to ask myself, given what I know of Archbishop Lefebvre, "Had Bishop Charriere refused canonical authorization for the pius union, would he have scrapped the entire enterprise, and gone back into retirement?" There is nothing in Archbishop Lefebvre's behavior or history to suggest that he would have followed such a course. Rather, the evidence (particularly the 1988 episcopal consecrations themselves) suggests the contrary: Archbishop Lefebvre, basing his actions firstly on the doctrine of necessity (having subordinated canonical considerations to the theological), is what justified and motivated his actions, and he would certainly have held the course and supplied for the needs of the faithful caught in the state of general grave spiritual necessity, regardless of whether canonical approval would have been forthcoming. In fact, this has always been the position of the SSPX (as evinced by the 2-part theological SiSiNoNo study which appeared in the Angelus for May and July, 1999 titled "The 1988 Episcopal Consecrations: A Theological Study." Available online at www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_July/The_1988_Consecrations.htm). The canonical considerations are always subordinated to the theological. Notice (as the very letter of Fr. Laisney evinces) that this is no longer the case in neo-Menzingen.
But that said, one is forced to question the relevence of Fr. Laisney's initial distinctions regarding the 1988 and 2015 episcopal consecrations. They seem irrelevent to the issue, insofar as they do nothing toward establishing that which he sets out to prove: That the 1988 and 2015 consecrations are not at all alike. His observations might be relevent in a conversation regarding which "society" has a better canonical or theological foundation, but have nothing to do with establishing a distinction in motive, purpose, scope, or consequence for the consecrations themselves. My response, then, is that these first observations regarding canonical approval, and the existence/lack of a proper society, are neither here nor there, and out of place in a conversation regarding episcopal consecrations.
Fr. Laisney's next attempt at distinguishing the 1988 and 2015 consecrations pertains to the respect Archbishop Lefebvre had for the canon law of the Church (as allegedly contrasted with Bishop Williamson's lack of respect for the same), and he observes that Archbishop Lefebvre "never thought that 'faith' would dispense him from the Canon Law!"
There are therefore two distinct claims being made within this attempt to distinguish the behavior and position of Archbishop Lefebvre from that of Bishop Williamson: Firstly, that the former respected canon law, where the latter does not. Secondly, that Archbishop Lefebvre never thought the faith would dispense him from the observance of the law.
Firstly, let us readily admit that Archbishop Lefebvre certainly had great respect for the canon law of the Church, and all things being equal, would have preferred to work with canonical approval. But to claim Bishop Williamson lacks such respect is manifestly false and unjust, as proven by the June 1, 2014 conference in Post Falls, ID, in which His Excellency explains to Resistance faithful that his call for a loose confederation of priests is not based firstly upon any personal or strategic preferences, but because he considers himself to lack the authority to found a proper religious congregation (Part 1 of that conference is available here: . For 90 minutes, His Excellency explains Archbishop Lefebvre's great deference for authority, and it was his desire to follow in Lefebvre's shoes that keeps him from founding a religious congregation without canonical approval. Furthermore, His Excellency was forthright in this regard, despite putting himself into open conflict with Fr. Pfeiffer and other hard-liners in order to hold that line. So to attempt to contrast Archbishop Lefebvre with Bishop Williamson based on an alleged lack of respect for canonical authority is patently absurd.
Secondly, it is equally obvious (despite the contention of Fr. Laisney to the contrary), that Archbishop Lefebvre certainly placed the faith above canonical considerations. How else could he justify the 1988 consecrations in the face of the Pope's "no," except by appealing to the theological principles of necessity, which transcend and trump canonical considerations? In the 2-part theological study cited above, which has long represented the "gold standard" of SSPX apologetics pertaining to justifying the 1988 consecrations, we find among so many other excellent quotes, this nugget:
"Jurisdiction "as if from itself" seems to have flowed from the Pope in the history of the Church whenever a grave necessity of the Church and of souls demanded it. In such extraordinary circumstances, says Dom Grea, the episcopacy proceeded "resolute in the tacit consent of its Head rendered certain by necessity" (op. cit. vol.I, p.220). Dom Grea does not say that the consent of the pope rendered the bishops certain of the necessity. On the contrary, the necessity rendered them certain of the consent of the pope. Precisely why did the necessity render the consent of their Head "certain," consent that in reality those bishops were ignoring? - Evidently because in necessity the positive judgment of Peter is owed. If from Christ, on the strength of his primacy, Peter has the power of extending or restricting the exercise of the power of episcopal order, from Christ he also has the duty to extend or restrict it according to the necessity of the Church and of souls. In the exercise of the power of the keys, Christ remains always the "principle agent" and "no other man can exercise [the power of the keys] as principle agent" (St. Thomas, Supplement, Q.19, A.4), but only "as instrument and minister of Christ" (ibid., Q.18, A.4). The keys of Peter are also "keys of ministry," and therefore not even Peter can use the power of the keys arbitrarily, but must be attentive to the divine order of things. The divine order is that jurisdiction flows to others by means of Peter, yes, but such that it is supplied "in a manner sufficient for the salvation of the faithful" (St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, Bk.4, c.72). Therefore, if Peter prevented it from being supplied sufficiently for the need of souls, he would act against the divine order and would commit a most grave fault (St. Thomas, Supplement, Q8, AA.4-9ƒƒ.)."
This passage not only demonstrates the superiority of the faith (i.e., theology) over the canon law, of which it is the source, but also that the Archbishop, SSPX, and Fr. Laisney himself have long understood that the theological argument trumps the canonical. Has it not always been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and the SSPX that "necessity is a cause excusing from the law" (see same study referenced above)? And for Fr. Laisney now to claim that the faith (i.e., theological considerations) cannot dispense one from the canon law is simultaneously to discard a defense the entire SSPX apostolate has relied upon from the beginning. Therefore, as Fr. Laisney's comment stands, it is a self-indictment, and admission that he (and the entire SSPX, for that matter) haven't a leg to stand on. Is this really an argument he wants to make?
Finally, with reference to the two arguments Fr. Laisney is making regarding the alleged disrespect for canon law, and the manifestly false idea that the faith (i.e., the doctrine of necessity) cannot dispense with canon law, I am again forced to wonder what the applicability is to a discussion allegedly initiated to distinguish the differences between the 1988 and 2015 episcopal consecrations. Rather, it seems his efforts thus far have been geared towards a criticism of the Resistance and Bishop Williamson generally, rather than comparing/contrasting anything specificly relevent to the scope, purpose, or justifications for the consecrations themselves (except in this last respect, to seemingly pull the rug out from under both sides with regard to appealing to the doctrine of necessity as the ultimate justification, which is as suicidal as it is erroneous).
The third argument adduced by Fr. Laisney in support of his contention there exists striking contrasts between the two consecrations of 1988 and 2015 once again misses the mark. Rather than comparing/contrasting the consecrations, he instead compares/contrasts the SSPX at it existed in 1988, versus the Resistance in 2015. The only relevence I can perceive in going down that path is that perhaps Fr. Laisney is implying that, because of the fruitfulness of the SSPX by 1988, the greater numbers (i.e., 200 priests, 200 seminarians, 6 seminaries, etc.) necessitated the consecrations (i.e., because it was too much work for Archbishop Lefebvre to handle all this himself?).
If this is his argument (i.e., a practical justification for the consecrations), it is one I have never seen the SSPX offer before. The SSPX has always primarily justified the 1988 episcopal consecrations on the basis of the state of grave general spiritual necessity. To try to justify episcopal consecrations from practical considerations (which would exist in a position grossly subordinate even to the canonical, much less theological justifications) would certainly be insufficient grounds for disobeying a direct command of the pope to abstain from consecrating, and therefore a more serious disregard for the canon law than the fictitious accusation levied against Bishop Williamson. For these reasons, this third attempt at contrasting the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, besides being completely irrelevent to them, is the weakest of Fr. Laisney's arguments, and quickly dispatched.
Fr. Laisney goes on to fulminate about the lack of unity within the nascent Resistance, commenting that there are lawsuits between Resistance members, and open displays of sedevacantism. Again: Is this a critique distinguishing the consecrations themselves, or a generalized criticism of the Resistance and resisters? As far as I can tell, the consecrations are not the focus of the plaintiff's energies. Nevertheless, since he has made the statement, I might observe that lawsuits between SSPX and laity are nothing new, nor between clergy. And so far as the emergence of a few sedevacantists among the clergy, does Fr. Laisney pretend not to remember how sedevacantism was also known at Econe in the early days? Where does he think "the nine" came from? Yes Fr. Laisney, we all remember the early days, before the SSPX became so monolithic in its doctrinal unity, and for what its worth, I rather tend to think this parallel within the nascent Resistance tends to unite it to the history of Econe and Archbishop Lefebvre's enterprise, rather than distinguishing it.
The fourth attempt at contrasting the 1988 and 2015 episcopal consecrations misses the mark yet again (see a pattern here?), instead represeting something more akin to "heckling." He asks how Bishop Faure can intend to found a seminary to carry on "Operation Survival" for something that does not yet exist. I suppose my response would be, "The same way Archbishop Lefebvre intended to provide for the survival of the true priesthood, and instruct the little band of seminarians who approached him in 1969, by founding a seminary which did not yet exist."
In his fifth attempt to compare/contrast the 1988 and 2015 episcopal consecrations, Fr. Laisney finally hits upon something directly relevent to the consecrations themselves: He observes that Archbishop Lefebvre exhausted himself in an attempt to have his episcopal consecrations canonically sanctiond and approved by Rome, yet observes that Bishop Williamson made no effort to do the same.
Our first response comes from the SSPX itself, as contained in part 2 of the same theological justification for the 1988 episcopal consecrations cited above:
"But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circumstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circumstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls. Any different behavior on the part of the pope presupposes, in fact, repentance and a humble admission of his own responsibility given that the act in question - i.e., the consecration of bishops -would not be required if the pope himself was not in some measure co-responsible for the state of grave and general necessity." (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm)
Which is to say that, whereas in the case of 1988, Rome was carrying on a ruse with Archbishop Lefebvre, pretending it was considering giving him a bishop, events (and the Archbishop himself) later made clear this was disingenuous, and that Rome was only waiting for him to die (and the traditional movement with him). Once Archbishop Lefebvre caught onto the ruse, the perceived need for appealing to them (or even remaining in frequent contact with them) was discarded.
Bishop Williamson, having lived through this affair, knows well that appealing to Rome would be pointless (as was clearly stated in the reading of the Apostolic Mandate at the consecration, and as the SSPX used to admit, per the theological study quoted from The Angelus above).
Therefore, while this distinction made by Fr. Laisney (the first one at all relevent to the subject he claims to be discussing) is valid, it is also without value or persuasion, not only in light of the quote provided above which illustrates the futility of appealing to modernist Rome, but also because it comes across as a disingenuous and arbitrary condemnation: Fr. Laisney is perfectly aware that the four SSPX bishops made no attempt to appeal to Rome for permission to consecrate Bishop Licinio Rangel for Campos in 1991 (and used practically the same Apostolic Mandate in 1991 as was used by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, and Bishop Williamson in 2015. Therefore, if the consecration of Bishop Faure is morally repugnant today, the consecration in which Bishop Fellay participated in 1991 was morally repugnant then.
Fr. Laisney's 6th attempt at contrasting the 1988 and 2015 consecrations resumes the pattern of irrelevency, deviating from a discussion of the consecrations themselves, and reverting back to the already refuted allegation that Bishop Williamson rejects the authority of the Pope, and despite the latter's own words, renders only a theoretical recognition of the Pope's authority.
In making this argument (already refuted by referring to the June 1, 2014 Post Falls conference, in which His Excellency explains he has not the authority to found a religious congregation, and would only do so were the Pope to call him to Rome and authorize his congregation - a segment which also gives the lie to those who want to pretend he refuses any contact with Rome whatsoever), were it not already known to the reader that Fr. Laisney was an SSPX priest, one would instinctively think this accusation came either from an Ecclesia Dei priest (which has long accused the "recognize and resist" position of practical sedevacantism, or a sedevacantist priest (who does not want to allow necessity as excusing from obedience to superiors in a widespread and sustained manner). I would only add, the point already having been refuted above, that to argue along these lines is rather to enforce the suspicion of a growing convergence with the Ecclesia Dei position, by making use of their arguments, and a drift from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre (who never gave the doctrine of necessity a shelf life).
Fr. Laisney's 7th attempted distinction is the most dumbfounding of all: In it, he pretends that whereas Archbishop Lefebvre only reacted after major scandals forced his hand, Bishop Williamson, on the other hand, reacted BEFORE any compromise was made. Apparently, Fr. Laisney would have you believe that anything short of a signed deal is not a compromise. What he seems to be unwilling to admit, is that the reason the SSPX is so close to a deal with Rome today is precisely because of the COMPROMISES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE! For example: The changing of the prudential precondition from the conversion of Rome; the expulsion of Bishop Williamson; the contradiction of the 2006 General Chapter declaration; the installment of six weak conditions (only three of which are considered essential) for the acceptance of an accord; the branding campaign whereby peace is made with Vatican II, all the scandalous statements of Bishop Fellay admitting that Vatican II belongs to the tradition of the Church; that religious liberty in Dignitatis Humanae was "very limited" (and therefore implicitly acceptable); that the fight for tradition has been shifted away from the fight for Christ the King, and reduced to the fight for the Mass (a la Ecclesia Dei); that so many of the Roman scandals are passed over in silence; that the distinction between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church (or eternal Rome vs Modernist Rome) has been eliminated; etc; etc.
No Fr. Laisney, there has been quite a bit more water under the bridge (and it all remains there!) than merely the scandalous April 15, 2012 doctrinal declaration (which, had it not been for Bishop Williamson throwing a monkey wrench into the gears, would already have had you accepting the legitimacy of the new Mass -which in your critique above, you seem to hint that it is communion in the hand, and not the Mass itself, that you object to- and the hermeneutic of continuity, with Vatican II deepening and enlightening "certain" aspects of the Faith).
In Fr. Laisney's final attempt at distinguishing the 1988 and 2015 consecrations, he is successful in actually addressing the subject for only the second time in eight attempts. He observes that Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated men much younger than himself, whereas Bishop Williamson consecrated a bishop roughly the same age. Fr. Laisney then questions rhetorically how Bishop Williamson can say he intends to ensure the survival of tradition by consecrating someone the same age as himself.
The problem here lies in Fr. Laisney's limited conception of what "ensuring the survival of tradition" entails. Fr. Laisney conceives of preserving tradition across time, hence his emphasis on age (i.e., temporal continuity). Bishop Williamson conceives of ensuring the survival of tradition in numbers (i.e., providing for another bishop in case something should happen to him). Both are ways or preserving tradition. But I would ask Fr. Laisney, "Would you have been happier had Bishop Williamson consecrated 4 young priests? Had that happened, would you not now be complaining that one bishop would have been sufficient? And had Bishop Williamson consecrated a younger man (or men), would you not be complaining that they did not have the requisite experience and learning to hold such an office?
Conclusion:
It should be expected that letters like that of Fr. Laisney will become more and more common. That just as Menzingen is using the consecration of Bishop Faure to aggrandize itself to Rome, by showing these Romans how different they are from the Resistance (and therefore, from the old SSPX) for the purposes of securing a practical accord, so too will authors like Fr. Laisney use the opportunity to aggrandize themselves to Menzingen, tripping over eachother in displays of loyalty to the regime, but mostly in hatred of everything the old SSPX and Bishop Williamson represent.
So far as the merits of the letter itself are concerned, the "striking contrast" (insofar as it exists) applies more to the differences between the neo-SSPX and the Resistance, than anything specific to the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and 2015.
Regarding those consecrations, they were nearly identical in all respects: They both featured practically the same Apostolic Mandate; they both based themselves on the state of necessity; they both explicitly announced the withholding of any apostolic mission (i.e., jurisdiction); and they both took place from a desire and need to provide for tradition.
In another article ("Initial Thoughts on the Episcopal Consecration"), I observed that Bishop Fellay would have to choose his response to this consecration very carefully, so as not to tie his hands regarding his own ability to perform an "unauthorized" consecration at a later date, should he ever snap out of Rome's spell. Unfortunately, he has basically forecasted to Rome (by these types of letters) an idea that going forward, all unapproved consecrations are not an option, or, that consecrations can only be performed with the consent of Rome. It is difficult, in the new Regime, to imagine Menzingen being willing to perform a consecration to perpetuate the SSPX without the permission of Rome. That being the case, what can clergy and laity expect from Menzingen in the future?
No bishops at all?
Bishops picked by Rome?
Those seem to be the only alternative futures for a Menzingen which has eagerly placed its head into the noose, and now pulls the loop tight.
Truly, this effort is well named "Operation Suicide."Posted by Sean Paul Johnson at 2:11 PM |
|
.jpg)
