ELEISON COMMENTS-AUTHORITY CRIPPLED-June 1st 2013

[Dawn Marie]

AUTHORITY CRIPPLED

A number of good souls wish that a Congregation were founded to replace the Society of St Pius X. But while I share their fear that the SSPX is presently well on its way to disabling its formerly glorious defence of Catholic Faith and life, and while I therefore sympathize with their desire to see another Congregation like it to take its place, I do not believe that that is possible, and I think it is worth explaining why.

When in 1970 Archbishop Lefebvre wrote the charter of principles in line with which the future SSPX would be founded and would function, namely its Statutes, it was for him of great importance to obtain the official approval of them by the bishop of the Catholic diocese in which the original house of the SSPX was situated. As far as he was concerned, obtaining or not obtaining that approval meant all the difference between founding a Congregation of the Catholic Church and launching a private association of his own. He had every interest in founding a Catholic Congregation, far less interest in launching a private institution.

In fact when he went to see Bishop Charrière of the Diocese of Geneva, Lausanne and Fribourg to obtain that approval, he was not hopeful. The Conciliar Revolution was by then well under way, and it was directly contrary to what the Statutes projected. Providentially however, Bishop Charrière gave his approval, perhaps because he knew he was to retire soon afterwards. In any case the Archbishop returned exultant to Écône, and one report even tells of him waving the Statutes triumphantly in the air.

What that meant to him was that from then on, as far as he was concerned, he had the Church’s authority to build a Congregation of the Church, and while a few years later Rome might attempt to take back that authorisation, the attempt was so intrinsically unjust according to Church law that the Archbishop never hesitated to continue exercising inside the SSPX all the authority of a classic Superior of a Congregation. That classic Catholic authority has such power that by harnessing it to lies the Conciliar Popes have been able virtually to destroy the Universal Church, and by its being harnessed to a practical agreement with Conciliar Rome it is now virtually destroying the SSPX. On the other hand, as for authority over priests, nuns and laity outside the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre never arrogated to himself any other than that of a father, adviser and friend.

But the days of a Bishop Charrière are long since gone. How many sane bishops are there left in the mainstream Church ? And how could any of them today approve of Traditional and anti-Conciliar Statutes ? It is as though, just after the Archbishop got out of the Catholic castle with the Catholic Statutes in his hand, the Conciliar portcullis crashed down behind him. “They are mentally sick, but they have the authority,” as one of the four SSPX theologians said about the Roman theologians after the Doctrinal Discussions of 2009-2011. The SSPX is surely the last in line of the classic Congregations to be founded, at least until after the Chastisement. And it has not lasted long.

That is why, in my opinion, “What cannot be cured must be endured.” And that is why, right now, I envisage being little more than father, adviser and friend for any souls calling for a bishop’s leadership and support. Even that is task enough. May God be with us all.

Kyrie Eleison.

[Dawn Marie]

Agree 100% Mario :)

The French District is doing it the right way.  Viva la France+

[3n21tr41n50ql]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Bishop de Mallerais in his biography of the Archbishop quote the Archbishop as advising his successors not to turn their backs on Rome, not to refuse discussion with them when they request it, and only to refuse succumbing to their errors?

For a few weeks there, I agree, cause was given for concern and fear; but such is what happens when works are performed under the cover of darkness, ie the "secret talks" of that association of modernist and Traditional Catholics--was that in France?--instead of such talks taking place in the plain of day.

But as wonderful as Bishop Williamson is, and he has over the decades given us much to be thankful for, his disobedience and rashness is the cause of his current situation, and I really do fear that much of the so-called "resistance" movement was orchestrated well in advance of its inception, and also undercover of darkness, and quite unnecessarily so. Personality clashes and internal politics are no grounds for such breaches of unions. Ask St John of the Cross, Athanasius, St Joan of Arc and a host of Saints who persecuted by the Church, and then , in the end, elevated to the Altars.

Weak comparisons, maybe. But therein a ring of truth, I think.

[Dawn Marie]

The Archbishops mindset was quite different after his "talks" with them.

ABL View of the Conciliar Church

ABL "If we move away from these people, is quite the same way as people with AIDS. There is no desire to catch it. Now, they have spiritual AIDS, infectious diseases. If you want to save your health, you need not to go with them."

__________________________________________________________________

ABL "Cardinal Ratzinger, on the other hand, does not hide it: They adopted ideas, not those of the Church, but those of the world and they consider their duty to make them enter the Church.


But the authorities did not change one iota their ideas about the Council, liberalism and modernism. They are anti-tradition, Tradition as it should be understood, as the Church understands it.


That does not fit their conception. Theirs is an “evolving” concept. They are therefore against this fixed tradition in which we stand.



We believe that everything the catechism teaches us, comes from Our Lord and the Apostles, and that there is nothing to change.


For them, no, everything is evolving and evolved with Vatican II. The current term of “evolution” is Vatican II.


This one is the reason for which we cannot link with Rome.


Whatever happens, we must continue as we have done, and the Good Lord shows us that following this route, we fulfill our duty."

_____________________________________________________________________

ABL"We do not deny the Roman Church. We do not deny their existence, but we cannot follow their directives. We cannot follow the principles of the Council. We cannot relate.


I realized the desire of Rome to impose their ideas and their way of seeing. Cardinal Ratzinger always told me "But Monsignor, there is only one Church, it is not necessary to make a parallel church."


Which is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear.


When he explicitly said to us: "Obviously, if this protocol [of 1988] is granted to you, you must also accept what we do, therefore, in the church Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet it will be necessary also to say a new mass every Sunday " …


You see he wanted to lead us to the Conciliar Church. This is not possible since it is clear that they want to impose these innovations on us to end the Tradition.


They do not grant anything for appreciation of the traditional liturgy, but simply to cheat those to whom they give it and to diminish our resistance; to insert a wedge in the traditional block to destroy it."

[Dawn Marie]

Many more of the Archbishops thoughts about Rome can also be found HERE.

In the end he concluded it was best to stay away from them for the time being.  At least I'm sure until they started to show signs of conversion. 

He knew they had NOT good intentions toward Tradition i.e toward the Faith of all time.  Why would any General Superior willingly put the SSPX under the control of modernists?  That's the question I've never been able to wrap my mind around, that was also the alarm that went off which launched the resistance in the first place.

I do not say the resistance is the answer to the crisis in the Society, but they do have a strong premise of an argument for their deep concerns about the direction the Society has now decided to take.  A completely different direction than it had always said.

Before in 2006 there could be no agreement with Rome without first a Doctrinal agreement.  Now, there can be an agreement with them, discarding all disagreements about Doctrine.

[3n21tr41n50ql]

DM,

Of course I do not disagree with anything in the above which you've written, in fact, I believe it also helps to prove my point. I will look up the specific citation from Bishop de Mallerais' biography of the Archbishop, but I am quite sure that the Archbishop's admonition to his successors to not refuse the Roman's invitation for discussion is correct, as well as his admonition to reject all of the Roman's errors, tricks and traps. "Be as wise as serpents..."

Maybe with cause some may have fallen into distrust of the current leadership of the Society, but until something concrete happens to warrant that distrust, I remain supportive of the current SG, watchful and doing my best to weigh all things.

[Dawn Marie]

Yes, I understand your thoughts on the matter Bill.  For me I would like to be able to say things as I really see them and as they actually happened over the last several years but unfortunately I can't do that.

So being limited to what I can say, I will leave it at this, Bp. Fellay chose to listen to the counsel of men with assurances of the Pope rather than listen to the counsels he should have been listening to.  The only counsel that actually mattered.

But I've come to learn that even Bp. Williamson for all his talk is no more interested in what matters or in that which does not coincide with his own will than are the rest of them.

So it is, that being the case I can only pray for these men and hope that someday they will understand that God alone is the answer, that His Mother alone is the one who is destined to restore the Church.  Not men and not by human hands.

[3n21tr41n50ql]

Which is what makes you a gem, DM!! We are closer in mind than I realized. God bless you D. You and you family remain in my prayers. :)