SSPX update?

[CesarAugustus]

Dee S, did you know why Catholics supported Franco in Spain?

Because Francisco Franco stopped the civil war, sided with Catholics, and protected them from the socialist massacre.

The socialists (Republican band) killed 3 bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarists, 2,364 monks and friars and 283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims. And many lay people too. That was known as the Red Terror.

Blessings!

 

[Dee_S]

Dee S, did you know why Catholics supported Franco in Spain?
Because Francisco Franco stopped the civil war, sided with Catholics, and protected them from the socialist massacre.

No I did not know, but now that I do, I can only say…“At what cost? Does the end justify the means?”

Here are some Franco Facts I came across…that you are welcome to dispute.

“He came to power while recognizing the principles of the far-right Falange Movement although this was for propaganda reasons, as he belonged to no political party before becoming Head of State.”

“Franco and the military participated in a coup d’état against the Popular Front government. The coup failed and evolved into the Spanish Civil War, during which Franco emerged as the leader of the Nationalists against the Popular Front government”

“During World War II, Franco officially maintained a policy of… neutrality,… However, he supported the volunteer Blue Division (against Russia)…and until 1943 the German navy used Spanish harbours.”

“After the end of World War II, Franco maintained his control in Spain through the implementation of austere measures…the systematic suppression of dissident views through censorship and coercion,%between%… the imprisonment of ideologically opposed enemies in concentration camps … throughout the country … the implementation of forced labor in prisons, and the use of the death penalty and heavy prison sentences as deterrents for his ideological enemies…After his death, Spain began its transition to Democracy.”

“Franco was a subscriber to Acción Española, an ultra-right wing monarchist theoretical journal, and a firm believer in the Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiracy - or contubernio, (filthy cohabitation), ‘one of Franco’s favourite words’; a conspiracy in which Jews, Freemasons and leftists allegedly sought the destruction of Christian Europe, with Spain the principal target.”

“… during the civil war Germany and Italy both provided military support to Franco.The nationalist side was supported by Fascist Italy,…and later by Nazi Germany.
Franco’s tactics received important military support from Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.”

“For reasons of prestige, it was decided to continue assisting Franco until the end of the war, and Italian and German troops paraded on the day of the final victory in Madrid.”

The socialists (Republican band) killed 3 bishops, 4,172 diocesan priests and seminarists, 2,364 monks and friars and 283 nuns, for a total of 6,832 clerical victims. And many lay people too. That was known as the Red Terror. Blessings!

Sorry to say, but what Franco did was even worse. I don’t think I would have supported him, or at least, I hope I would not have
“At least 50,000 people were executed during the civil war.%between%%between%. Franco’s victory was followed by thousands of summary executions (from 15,000 to 25,000 people%between%) and imprisonments, while many were put to forced labor, building railways, drying out swamps, digging canals.”

"In his recent, updated history of the Spanish Civil War, Antony Beevor “reckons Franco’s ensuing ‘White Terror’ claimed 200,000 lives. The ‘red terror’ had already killed 38,000.”%between%

“According to the recent discovery of a World War II document, Franco ordered his provincial governors to compile a list of Jews while he negotiated an alliance with the Axis powers.%between% Franco supplied Heinrich Himmler with a list of 6,000 Jews in Spain, for the Nazis’ “Final Solution”.”%between%

“It is true that Franco built no concentration camps on Spanish territory, nor did he voluntarily hand Jews over to Germany.%between% Spanish diplomats, acting outside of Franco’s authority, extended their diplomatic protection over Jews in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the Balkans.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco

 

[Dee_S]

btw I agree that SSPX may not be the most urgent matter facing the Magisterium today…in fact I can totally agree that moral relativism and heterodoxy among Catholics who resist Church teachings on matters such as abortion and same sex “marriage” are more urgent and pressing issues than a group of some paltry half a million Catholics who will eventually be completely reintegrated into the Roman Catholic Church…hopefully as Personal Prelature #2.

That being said, the topic of this thread is still SSPX, and updates thereto. The expulsion of Bishop Williamson is arguably the most interesting recent update…if anyone cares to comment (charitably) on that.

It certainly is the most interesting…in a weird sort of way. Having just done my post on Franco -- I see some similarities in BW - which are further borne out by the following extract from his most recent eleison commentI refrain from posting a link to his now-no-longer-hidden website)

"In brief, I think that the situation of today’s Catholic Resistance calls for no hurried action, but for a thoughtful measuring of men and events until the will of God becomes more clear. I think – I may be wrong – that he wants a loose network of independent pockets of Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience such as served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s, and is now sinking the Society of St Pius X. If you agree, by all means make contributions to the St Marcel Initiative because they will certainly come in useful, maybe sooner than I think. For myself, as soon as my situation stabilizes in England, I am ready to put my bishop’s powers at the disposal of whoever can make wise use of them."

 

[CesarAugustus]

No I did not know, but now that I do, I can only say…“At what cost? Does the end justify the means?”…

First, Falange, was a nationalistic party, they were rivals of the communists, because, while both having a worker, anti-capitalist and popular focus, Falange was not anticatholic like the Communists. For marxists, everything that is traditional, conservative or catholic, is called extreme right wing, or ultra conservative, or fascist. Is a dirty trick they use over here (South America) and in Spain.

The Blue Division was sent because the rivals were the Soviets, and not, because they suported Nazism. They still are well remembered in religious processions for their bravery against the atheist Russia of the time.

http://tradiciondigital.es/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/estandartedivisionazul.jpg

The Soviets sent support to the communist band in the civil war too.

If Franco did’t won that war, Spain would have turned into a Soviet satellite and the death toll of Catholics would have been higher. The destruction of Catholicism would have been almost total. Like the religious persecutions in Russia and the decimation of Orthodox Churches and Monasteries.

The reds were far worse than Franco. But now, since they have better reputation (just see the popularity marxism enjoys in academic circles in South America, for example people learn in the school about the Holocaust, but there is a silence about the Holodomor, Stalin purges, the atheist league massacres in Russia, the Pol Pot massacres, and other communist killings in the 20th century -ah, and don’t forget the black legends against Spain and Catholicism young people are being fed in the schools and universities too-), they decided to whitewash their history. Typical.

And now, Catholics over here have to suffer from the hostility of both, right wing (liberal rigth, neoliberals) and left wing (communists, socialists, liberal left) parties. The right wing, ignoring Chrurch Social Doctrine, and the left wing, trying to impose abortion, homosexualism, class warfare, and cultural marxism (they have succedeed in the last one. Materialism is rampant over here).

I suggest you to read books about the topic, and not just wikipedia. Franco’s regime is a complex topic.

And, I’m not a Franco supporter, but I recognize the good he did for Spain and Catholics. I’m just telling the other side of the history, the side that some people want to hide.

Seriously, if the socialists are killing Catholics, burning Chruches, destroying monuments, why the Catholics are going to side with them? That’s why they sided with Franco.

Blessings!

 

[CesarAugustus]

Also, the Republicans didn’t stopped at the killing of religious, clerics, etc. No, they killed, raped, tortured lots of lay Catholics. But as expected, the massacres and genocides commited by socialists are forgotten.

Blessings!

 

[JReducation]

I have no way to express how grateful I am for your reply. It taught me a lot and moves me to meditate more. I do not think I deserved your reply, and I sincerely apologize if anything I said was disrespectful or offensive in any way.

No apologies needed.

I am not trying to accuse SSPX or anyone of anything. All I am trying to do is to say that I believe obedience to the Church and to the Holy Father is crucial, and since I have been finding out of many ways to promote the Extraordinary Form, I felt this simple need to share them.

Even if the Church were not a divinely inspired society, there has to be a central government or there would be chaos. In our own country, not everyone likes the current president. Imagine what the country would be like if we were to dismiss his commands. Instead, we take several steps. We respect the office and we respond to him with respect, even when we disagree. Those who agree fall in line with him. Those who disagree, do so very politely. I look at our bishops and how they have spoken to him and about him when dealing with him on some very serious moral issues. The bishops have not been belligerent. They’ve been honest, but gentlemanly. I have not heard a single bishop get up in the pulpit and call him a name. I’ve heard and read this by SSPX bishops, clergy and laity. This kind of behavior throws off the balance in any community.

I agree with you 150% that obedience is crucial. St. Benedict and St. Francis were masters on the theology of obedience. Both wrote that even when authority is wrong, you must obey, unless you’re being ordered to violated the Commandments. The logic is that Christ obeyed, even when Pilate and the Jewish leadership was wrong. He did not obey because they were right, he obeyed out of pure charity.

Well I just deleted the post because I didn’t want to seem uncharitable. But apparently you had already responded to it. Anyway I believe the EF Mass homily emphasis on including more Catholic prayer in one’s daily life was a response to the reading from Mark, vis-a-vis loving God with all our heart, all our mind, etc- one aspect of that love being prayerful devotion.

Thank you for putting this into context for me. Now I understand the connection. He was preaching on means to show love, not preaching on Marian devotions. Got it. I often get very confused on these boards, because some things are said so succinctly that I don’t see the context.

Perhaps the promotion of Zen meditation in the later Mass I attended was in response to the same reading, though I’m really not sure now because I was rather distressed to hear it and was distracted after I did hear it. Of course, for those who think it is perfectly acceptable to meld Eastern religious practices with Catholicism, I must seem old fashioned.

Well, as we have always said in theology, you can certainly find pieces of truth everywhere. There are Catholic truths in Eastern practices and Eastern spirituality as well. Long before Christian monasticism existed, Easten Asia had monasticism. We would never say that monasticism is good in the Christian world and evil in the Buddhist world, that would be untrue. We would say that the object of contemplation in the Buddhist world is false and therefore such contemplation is nihilistic rather than transcendent. The problem is the object, not the means (monasticism and meditation).

Having said that, I would not have brought this up in a homily. This is the kind of thing that I would bring up in a theology class and have brought up in my theology classes when I teach seminarians. In that setting, I have time to answer questions and I can even drag it out over several classes until I know that everyone understands the overlaps and the differences. A seven minute homily does not give you the luxury of explaining all of this, not to mention that the audience is diverse in age and background. In a classroom, your students are all on the same page.

I believe that this happens too often in homilies. This creates more problems than what it solves. Preachers pull something out of theology, Church history, exegesis, canon law or some other eccesial discipline and throw it out there. The congregation is lost, frustrated or scandalized. More than 50% of the time, the point is being made out of context and being delivered to a group that is not on the same page as the preacher.

I heard a preacher speak on women in the Church. I was fascinated. I also have a doctorate in theology. I have had this conversation as student with my professors. The professors, in the role of devil’s advocate pushed the women’s ordination thing to get us to rebutle. However, there were 500 people in the church. The fallout was horrific. Some were scandalized that Father was preaching contrary to the Church’s teachings and other felt reaffirmed in their belief that that Church was wrong.

When I asked Father about it, his answer was perfectly logical. He explained that he was trying to explain his struggles with the question in the hope of helping people to see that one can struggle with the Church’s position on something and still remain a faithful Catholic as long as one did not act contrary to what the Church teaches. I explained to him that the message did not come through as he was hoping. The poor man felt badly about it. I suggested that he take that subject up in an adult faith formation class where people can stop him and ask him questions and where he has more than 10 minutes.

My favorite statement when teaching future religious and future priests is to say, “Every time that you speak out of context, someone walks out the door. Beware.”

 

[JReducation]

That being said, the topic of this thread is still SSPX, and updates thereto. The expulsion of Bishop Williamson is arguably the most interesting recent update…if anyone cares to comment (charitably) on that.

The Williamson affair really distresses many of us. I always knew that he was not going to be welcome back into the Church. Pope Benedict had hinted about this. He said, “Everyone knows that I would never introduce an anti-Semite into polite society.” After he made that statement, he ordered that only Bishop Fellay be received with the SSPX. The other bishops would have to apply for regularization individually. The hope was that by doing it this way, the Holy Father could turn Bishop Williamson away unless he recanted his position on the Shoah. Bishop Williamson has never recanted. He apologized for causing the Pope can inconvenience. That’s not the same as saying, “I’m wrong and you’re right.”

This is the statement that the pope wants from him. This is what every bishop and religious superior is being asked to say before we take office these days. Before I became superior general I had to promise never to publicly disagree with the Holy Father on anything, especially anything concerning Jews and Muslims. Now, some communities are demanding that the superior of the house make the same promise to the superior of the community. You will never publicly state anything contrary to your superior’s opinion or contrary to that of your bishop, unless you’re denouncing sin or a crime. You will always denounce sin and crimes and you will swear never to cover up.

What I am concerned about is that Bishop Williamson turned on his superior and the leadership council of the SSPX. There is something to be said for conscience. There is also something in moral theology that says that conscience is not what we want to make it out to be. We have a duty to form our consciences. The first law of conscience is the law of love.

When I accepted to serve my brothers as their superior general, I did so out of love. My love of God prompted me to obey the Holy Spirit’s choice. Though I must admit that I wondered by the Holy Spirit chose the fool in the community to lead. I’ll have to ask him that when we meet in heaven. I also responded out of love for my brothers whom I care for like a gardener cares for his garden.

Therefore, I feel strongly that the relationship between the superior and the subject is a reflection of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Love can really suck. Just ask the Crucified one.

I am concerned about the Bishop’s understanding of a loving obedience. To disagree and to denounce sin is one thing, to attack the character of another person is not love. This was his approach toward Bishop Fellay. To disobey when told to shut down his site was not love. Souls were not at risk, if the site disappeared. There are other means to preach. Those things raise all kinds of questions about his future inside the Church and whether the Holy Father will be more hesitent to welcome him. I believe that in the end, if Bishop Williamson makes an overture, the Holy Father has to welcome him, even if he makes him the administrator of some basilica in Rome where he has no duties as the head of a diocese. After all, keeping the Church together is Peter’s assignment given to him by Christ.

@JREducation

I must admit that I had never considered this perspective, and it must have been indeed very peculiar for his brothers…and challenging for his superiors.

I’ve read letters and journals by brothers who were around then. Some are gone, but some are young and still talking. There were things that amazed them, positively and negatively. One friar was saying that on a certain morning, Pio came to celebrate mass and he looked like he had been in a train wreck. The friar was a young postulant, probably about 17 years old. He asked Pio if he was OK. Pio snapped at him, “Of course not. Would you be ok if the devil had kept you up all night throwing you around your room.” The young 17 year old ran out of the sacristy and reported to the superior that he thought that Pio was dipping into the altar wine. These are not the daily happenings in a religious house. It takes a while before everyone connects the dots and realizes that there is something truly mystical happening here.

When the story about the reporting by the postulant is told without the background, then the postulant sounds like a real creep. As I tell my seminarians, “Out of context, out the door.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

The Williamson affair really distresses many of us. I always knew that he was not going to be welcome back into the Church. Pope Benedict had hinted about this. He said, “Everyone knows that I would never introduce an anti-Semite into polite society.” After he made that statement, he ordered that only Bishop Fellay be received with the SSPX. The other bishops would have to apply for regularization individually. The hope was that by doing it this way, the Holy Father could turn Bishop Williamson away unless he recanted his position on the Shoah. Bishop Williamson has never recanted. He apologized for causing the Pope can inconvenience. That’s not the same as saying, “I’m wrong and you’re right.”

This is the statement that the pope wants from him. This is what every bishop and religious superior is being asked to say before we take office these days. Before I became superior general I had to promise never to publicly disagree with the Holy Father on anything, especially anything concerning Jews and Muslims. Now, some communities are demanding that the superior of the house make the same promise to the superior of the community. You will never publicly state anything contrary to your superior’s opinion or contrary to that of your bishop, unless you’re denouncing sin or a crime. You will always denounce sin and crimes and you will swear never to cover up.

What I am concerned about is that Bishop Williamson turned on his superior and the leadership council of the SSPX. There is something to be said for conscience. There is also something in moral theology that says that conscience is not what we want to make it out to be. We have a duty to form our consciences. The first law of conscience is the law of love.

I am concerned about the Bishop’s understanding of a loving obedience. To disagree and to denounce sin is one thing, to attack the character of another person is not love. This was his approach toward Bishop Fellay. To disobey when told to shut down his site was not love. Souls were not at risk, if the site disappeared. There are other means to preach. Those things raise all kinds of questions about his future inside the Church and whether the Holy Father will be more hesitent to welcome him. I believe that in the end, if Bishop Williamson makes an overture, the Holy Father has to welcome him, even if he makes him the administrator of some basilica in Rome where he has no duties as the head of a diocese. After all, keeping the Church together is Peter’s assignment given to him by Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

It’s refreshing to read an analysis of this situation that doesn’t include, “nyah, nyah, SSPX is getting a taste of its own medicine” etc. etc. That sort of thing isn’t helpful when it is done, and besides being juvenile it doesn’t add to the understanding of or speak to the specifics of the Bishop Williamson situation, which really don’t compare well with the specifics of the SSPX divergence from Rome.

I think you also address the great conciliatory and compassionate nature of our beloved Pope- who in the fullness of time will surely be made a Doctor of the Church, on the basis of his prolific, profound-yet-accessible work as a theologian. He will also no doubt be, at the least, beatified for his great leadership of the Church in one of the most difficult times in its history. I also agree that should Bishop Williamson recant his unsound views on the Holocaust- which I pray he will- there is no doubt that the Pope will find a place in the Church for Bishop Williamson which takes advantage of his undeniable intellectual prowess while at the same time neutralizing the potential for scandal that might be caused by his personal views. If anyone can do it, Pope Benedict XVI can!

 

[JReducation]

It’s refreshing to read an analysis of this situation that doesn’t include, “nyah, nyah, SSPX is getting a taste of its own medicine” etc. etc. That sort of thing isn’t helpful when it is done, and besides being juvenile it doesn’t add to the understanding of or speak to the specifics of the Bishop Williamson situation, which really don’t compare well with the specifics of the SSPX divergence from Rome.

Many people will argue that the Holocaust is not a matter of dogma. This is absolutely true.

However, there are other issues besides dogma. We cannot lock ourselves in this little box with our dogmas and moral codes and to hell with the rest. It does not work that way. The Church exists in the world and is made up of human beings who come from this world, live in this world, deal with the world and die in this world.

The Church will always have positions on world events, even if those positions are mistaken, as was the case with Galileo. Like any other human society, the Church has the right to say that if you want to be an active member of this community, you must subscribe to these dogmas, moral laws, disciplines and positions that the institution takes.

Very often, Catholics do not realize how very lucky we are to have had a Vatican Council II that declared that religious freedom is a right. In the past, anyone who dared to disagree with a pope or a bishop could be summarily executed. There was no religious freedom not only for heretics, but none for Catholics either, not Catholics whom the hierarchy considered to be an annoyance. How many times was John of the Cross arrested? St. Teresa of Avila was shot at. St. Joan of Arc was executed.

Today, the Church is telling Bishop Williamson and others who are in the public eye and hold such positions that they must put distance between themselves and such positions. She’s not sending the Swiss Guard out to arrest them and drag them back to the pope to be tried. They are simply being told to stand down.

Another important consideration in the case of the Shoah, which has to be factored in by the rest of us, is that the last five popes lived in the middle of this tragedy. Bishop Williamson is much younger. He was either not born or an infant. He did not live under Nazis and Communists. Popes from Pius XII to Benedict XVI did. They witnessed the horror and experienced the helplessness that they felt in not being able to deter either the Nazis or the Communists. To minimize their actions is taken very personally by these popes. They too were victims.

We must also consider that to say that there were no gas chambers raises questions about a saint like St. Edith Stein. If there was no gas chamber, what did her sister Rosa and companions see? Why would these folks tell this tale under oath at her canonization hearings? What did Cardinal O’Connor see when he visited Auschwitz? This was what motivated him to found the Congregation of the Sisters of Life. Why did Cardinal Roncalli smuggle more than 500 children out of Europe, if the number of Jews being killed was negligible? Why did the Franciscans arrested with St. Maximilian Kolbe and survived Auschwitz report that there were two common ways of killing the inmates: starvation bunkers and gas chambers? What did they have to win by lying to a commission doing an investigation for a canonization? After all, St. Max was not gassed. They did not have to mention the gas chambers.

There is the issue of the Pope’s personal apostolate. For more than 20 years, Joseph Ratzinger has personally led the Commission on Jewish and Catholic Relations and the Commission of Islamic and Catholic Relations. When he became pope, he said that he would not be giving up these two posts. He remains the president of both commissions. He has held that the work of building peace between Christians, Jews and Muslims is near and dear to the heart of the Church. For a public figure to antagonize either Muslims or Jews and to have the Catholic leadership look the other way, because this is not a dogmatic question, raises questions about the Church’s credibility when she says that she wants to invite Muslims and Jews to the table to begin work on that which we have in common, the suffering of our people because of war and terror. From there, if we can build a friendship and a trust, we may be able to move to dialogue about our faith in an environment where one need not feel threatened.

A comment made by me or you, may not do anything to the credibility of the Church. On the other hand, one by a public figure that belongs to a society that has been accused of anti-Semitism, throws a monkey wrench in the pope’s personal apostolate. No one has the right to do this to a Pontiff. Come to think of it, we don’t have a right to do this to anyone, if what that person is achieving is good.

 

[JReducation]

On the other side, I’m not sure if dismissal was such a good idea either. It seems to have created a major rift within the SSPX laity. I have read on other sites where laymen are accusing Bishop Fellay and the council of being everything from Modernists to bullies.

I’ll be very honest. As a religious superior, this sends chills down my spine. Until the Council of Trent religious communities dealt with the ongoing threat by laymen to take away our property, to stop funding our work, to torture us when possible, to buy and sell offices inside religious houses and even to interfere in how we interpreted and applied our rules and constitutions. Finally, the Council of Trent ruled that no layman had any business in the internal affairs of a community. To prevent this, the Council added that no bishop was to allow the laity in his diocese to intervene, nor was the bishop to intervene on behalf of the laity. The laity and the diocese would continue to be financially responsible for the apostolic work of the religious, including those communities whose apostolate is contemplation. But neither the laity nor the bishops would get involved, question or challenge the decisions of the lawfully elected superiors or their subjects. Every religious is free to do as he pleases until his superior says, “Stop”.

Things have gone well between laity and religious for centuries. This does not mean that there have not been problems and mistakes. It simply means that laity kept away and when they tried to demand explanations or information and when they tried to dictate to superiors, bishops would buffer, because the bishop is directly responsible for the laity in his diocese.

The reason that this sends chills down my back is because if this group succeeds in getting the SSPX to bend, it sets a precedent that can send us back 500 years. I was not alive then, but from what I have read, there was a great deal of hatred and suspicion between lay and religious prior to Trent.

Who of us wants to go back to the “good old days”? Observe quotes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

On the other side, I’m not sure if dismissal was such a good idea either. It seems to have created a major rift within the SSPX laity. I have read on other sites where laymen are accusing Bishop Fellay and the council of being everything from Modernists to bullies.
.
The reason that this sends chills down my back is because if this group succeeds in getting the SSPX to bend, it sets a precedent that can send us back 500 years. I was not alive then, but from what I have read, there was a great deal of hatred and suspicion between lay and religious prior to Trent.

Who of us wants to go back to the “good old days”? Observe quotes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I can say with some certainty, having once been on the inside (almost 15 years) that fortunately no such ‘group’ as we understand it actually exists. It is more a case of small pockets of dissenters who are against any deal with Rome, caused by a fearful perception that they are the enemy out to destroy what they stand for.

They really do not represent a majority. No stats are available except those of the General Chapter where superiors were asked to vote. Almost one third were in his favor, but bear in mind that they were voting on whether he should take part in it - given his continued rebellion & disobedience. This does not mean to say that one third of the SSPX leadership support him.

Prior to the lifting of the excommunications, which co-incided with Bishop Williamsons’s stance on Jews/The Holocaust becoming public knowledge, there was no evident division between the four bishops of the Society. In no way were they ever known to be at odd’s with each other, at least not in any public way or in any way that caught the attention of the laity. There were never any ‘groups’ that formed themselves around any particular bishop as a result of their attitude towards reconciliation with Rome, or for any other matter really. If there was any leaning towards admiring a particular bishop, it was admiration due to his personality or spirituality - which is pretty normal.

Although it appears that certain laity are taking sides, it is not really the case, and to date no actual ‘group’ has attached itself to Bishop Williamson as such. Take a look at my extract posted above regarding his latest newsletter - it is clear to see that he is still looking for ‘a place to land.’ This can be further borne out by the fact that at the time of his refusal to retract his position on the Holocaust (this requested by his superior Bishop Fellay and by the Holy Father) he also chose to refuse the ‘gagging order’ sensibly imposed on him by his superior and started an underground campaign by sending out his Eleison comments to any individual who sought out his website. They were given an email link to register to receive these newsletters (and could buy the much promoted copies of his past sermons/talks on tape,dvd etc.) It is in this way that his disobedience and wayward direction from the SSPX took root.

Although BW has a certain charm and charisma, he was by no means the most ‘popular’ bishop of the four. Certainly he attracted his share of attention, which was marked by his lively and straightforward manner. His ‘oppressive & chauvanistic policies’ on the rights of Catholic Husbands & where he thought females fitted in, were well known due to his many letters & publications, and were often the subject of discussion (not in any way accepted by any female or even most males that I knew of:thumbsup: - sadly though he fostered a nasty spirit in husbands who were already inclined to be bullies, that justified their already unpardonable treatment of the scared & downtrodden wives - this is no exaggeration - backed up by biased spiritual reinforcement, “obey your husbands” etc.).

On this topic his personal charm tended to overcome any true bitterness, so for the most part, it was indulgently not held against him, but did raise an eyebrow or two.

So my point here is, that there may have been those in the laity who liked him enough to find him out and subscribe to his newsletters since he went underground. Perhaps even buy a tape/dvd or two. But as for being actual supporters he can count on…no, for the great majority of parishioners are bred on the very good diet of Obedience & Respect for their priests and bishops and trust in them to lead the way.

I’m sure many people inside or outside are as saddened as I am to see a respected & devout bishop, become by his own doings, an international and public object of ridicule and antagonism. Expelled from the organization he was a founder member of - distancing himself from the unity of his fellow clergy - to continue beating the drum of a lost and outdated cause…with pockets of disaffected rebels

 

[Dee_S]

Take a look at this video clip from youtube called Traditionalist Leader Talks About His Movement youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY

Here Bishop Fellay is seen as he really is. A quiet, humble and likeable man who commands respect and admiration among both insiders and those who know him for the first time. Many are counting on him to lead them through this unusual and difficult time. He is not ‘acting’ for this, it is how he usually is.

Bishop Williamson was always defined by his attraction to conspiracies, radical outlook on feminism, objectionable attitudes towards the Jewish People, attachment to strange private revelations not approved by the Church and most other oddities that go with this type of profile.:yukonjoe:

His ‘world view’ was not that of the vast majority of SSPX supporters, but there are always the few who are of a like mind, but whether they follow him or not at this point is debatable.

Faithdancer’s description when he attended mass at one of their chapels is on the mark. The faithful are deeply pious people (or they would not be there) who’s love and reverence are beyond doubt and who’s catholic lives are a consolation and example for many. I think they would be very happy indeed to be reconciled with Rome, because it is always a worry deep down that they are not. Yes, outwardly and intellectually the excuses and justifications for their position are held to - but inwardly, any true catholic knows and wants acceptance in Holy Mother Church.

 

[Dee_S]

First, Falange, was a nationalistic party, they were rivals of the communists, because, while both having a worker, anti-capitalist and popular focus, Falange was not anticatholic like the Communists. For marxists, everything that is traditional, conservative or catholic, is called extreme right wing, or ultra conservative, or fascist. Is a dirty trick they use over here (South America) and in Spain.

The Blue Division was sent because the rivals were the Soviets, and not, because they suported Nazism. They still are well remembered in religious processions for their bravery against the atheist Russia of the time.

http://tradiciondigital.es/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/estandartedivisionazul.jpg

The Soviets sent support to the communist band in the civil war too.

If Franco did’t won that war, Spain would have turned into a Soviet satellite and the death toll of Catholics would have been higher. The destruction of Catholicism would have been almost total. Like the religious persecutions in Russia and the decimation of Orthodox Churches and Monasteries.

The reds were far worse than Franco. But now, since they have better reputation (just see the popularity marxism enjoys in academic circles in South America, for example people learn in the school about the Holocaust, but there is a silence about the Holodomor, Stalin purges, the atheist league massacres in Russia, the Pol Pot massacres, and other communist killings in the 20th century -ah, and don’t forget the black legends against Spain and Catholicism young people are being fed in the schools and universities too-), they decided to whitewash their history. Typical.

And now, Catholics over here have to suffer from the hostility of both, right wing (liberal rigth, neoliberals) and left wing (communists, socialists, liberal left) parties. The right wing, ignoring Chrurch Social Doctrine, and the left wing, trying to impose abortion, homosexualism, class warfare, and cultural marxism (they have succedeed in the last one. Materialism is rampant over here).

I suggest you to read books about the topic, and not just wikipedia. Franco’s regime is a complex topic.

And, I’m not a Franco supporter, but I recognize the good he did for Spain and Catholics. I’m just telling the other side of the history, the side that some people want to hide.

Seriously, if the socialists are killing Catholics, burning Chruches, destroying monuments, why the Catholics are going to side with them? That’s why they sided with Franco.

Blessings!

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. And yes, I am learning as I go along. In defence of wiki, it is always a good starting point for further research. They have yet to acquire the reputation of being biased or dishonest, it is just that their function is not specific & academic. But, then it would cease to be wiki, would it not?

I won’t take up your suggestion to read more about Franco or any other war monger. lthough my hobby is table top war gaming, I intensely dislike those types who are able to blood-let - even in the best of causes. I would opt for peace talks and not pandering to the ego’s of those few in positions of power who decided on and use people like weapons, to be hurled against each other in slaughter until victory is attained.

I know the argument of defending in a just cause, and there is some validity to it, but think that peace talks are seldom favored where the war machine is concerned.

I can only repeat here, that I would like to think that I would not have sided with Franco in any way, but the frailty of human nature & cowardice probably would have made a moral traitor of me. Unless, of course, grace came to my assistance. To have supported in any way, such a rapacious, vainglorious & morally offensive individual as Franco and what he stood for would really have been soul destroying.

Whether or not God used him to assist catholics and defend the country from Marxists control remains to be proven I believe. It is perhaps not such as straight line as all that. That catholics & religious institutions escaped death is something of a secondary reason that supports this conclusion.
Catholics have and probably always will get caught up in the cross-fire, so many examples up to the present day attest to that. Especially where the Church has missionary work.

I do get your point about biased and slanted versions of history, but then again, history is always written by the victors!

 

[Faithdancer]

Take a look at this video clip from youtube called Traditionalist Leader Talks About His Movement youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY

Here Bishop Fellay is seen as he really is. A quiet, humble and likeable man who commands respect and admiration among both insiders and those who know him for the first time. Many are counting on him to lead them through this unusual and difficult time. He is not ‘acting’ for this, it is how he usually is.

Bishop Williamson was always defined by his attraction to conspiracies, radical outlook on feminism, objectionable attitudes towards the Jewish People, attachment to strange private revelations not approved by the Church and most other oddities that go with this type of profile.:yukonjoe:

His ‘world view’ was not that of the vast majority of SSPX supporters, but there are always the few who are of a like mind, but whether they follow him or not at this point is debatable.

Faithdancer’s description when he attended mass at one of their chapels is on the mark. The faithful are deeply pious people (or they would not be there) who’s love and reverence are beyond doubt and who’s catholic lives are a consolation and example for many. I think they would be very happy indeed to be reconciled with Rome, because it is always a worry deep down that they are not. Yes, outwardly and intellectually the excuses and justifications for their position are held to - but inwardly, any true catholic knows and wants acceptance in Holy Mother Church.

Your conciliatory sentiments are admirable- and shared.

When I first called the SSPX Chapel to inquire whether the Mass times I found on the SSPX website were still current, the man I spoke with expressed great concern that I might get into hot water with the Diocese over my attending an SSPX Mass. I was perplexed by his humility as this was not the haughty, rebellious attitude I had been led to expect. Anyway, after attending Mass there and seeing how humble and unpretentious it all was I totally agree that these folks need to be repatriated, and soon. I think that they will easily see how worthy the amazing Benedict XVI is to lead us, once they are completely back in the fold. I would guess that, as you infer, most of them see it already- how could they not? Our Pope is a living saint already, imho.

 

[Faithdancer]

Take a look at this video clip from youtube called Traditionalist Leader Talks About His Movement youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY Here Bishop Fellay is seen as he really is. A quiet, humble and likeable man who commands respect and admiration among both insiders and those who know him for the first time. Many are counting on him to lead them through this unusual and difficult time. He is not ‘acting’ for this, it is how he usually is.:

And thanks for posting this, Dee. I’d seen it once before, but it was well worth seeing again. The last 10 seconds are most telling- Bishop Fellay speaks from his heart when he refers to Benedict XVI as the Holy Father. He acknowledges our pope’s tremendous personal investment in the reconciliation process. I think it is clear that Bishop Fellay wants it to happen too.

 

[JReducation]

Take a look at this video clip from youtube called Traditionalist Leader Talks About His Movement youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY

Here Bishop Fellay is seen as he really is. A quiet, humble and likeable man who commands respect and admiration among both insiders and those who know him for the first time. Many are counting on him to lead them through this unusual and difficult time. He is not ‘acting’ for this, it is how he usually is.

I’ve always been very consistent on two points regarding Bishop Fellay.

My first is that I truly like the man. There is something about him that is genuine. I’ve never met him. I’ve heard his speeches and read some.

My second point is that I disagree with him on the number of persons in the Trinity, not to mention a number of other points.

But that’s all fine. People do not have to agree to be in the same Church and they certainly don’t have to like each other.

I do have one very serious problem with him since this mess began with Bishop Williamson, the Preamble and everything before the General Chapter. This is where some of you may be able to help me. My problem with him is the same as I have with other superiors who are not out of communion with the Church.

I come from a Franciscan tradition that is very rigorous. I came out of the Capuchin tradition. From there, we moved to form an independent Franciscan community, Franciscans of Life, for the purpose of doing nothing but being the voice of the voiceless. It was a desire to serve a very specific population that moved us. As we moved toward independence, we also went backward to our original rule and constitutions of 1221. It was a very good opportunity to do so.

Franciscans of Life are not the only community that is going back to the ancient constitutions of the Middle Ages. Many Dominican congregations are doing it as well as many Franciscan orders.

Here is my dilemma. Maybe it’s due to a lack of understanding of the infrastructure of the SSPX. Sometimes I want to throttle Bishop Fellay. As much as I like him, I often feel that he has to be more authoritative.

This may be a product of my own Franciscan formation and tradition. In our rule Francis is very clear. Everyone owes obedience to him, even after his death. The role of his elected successors is to guarantee that obedience. He gave his elected successors the power to punish and even to imprison those who disobey. Anyone who disobeys the successor of St. Francis (the superior) disobeys Francis. Francis is not to be disobeyed even when he’s wrong, unless he commands you to sin. Therefore, he has the power and authority to command without being questioned, as long as he does not command you to violate the commandments.

As the canonical successor of St. Francis, it would never occur to me to ask the brothers for their opinion on a reconciliation with Rome. I would take the Preamble to the council. Get the council’s (name removed by moderator)ut, which is only advisory, because the council has very limited authority and this is not one of the areas where the constitution grants the council any authority. I would then come back and simply announce, “We’re going back to Rome boys.”

If someone asked why, the answer is simple, “Because I believe it’s the best thing for us. This conversation is over.” When someone comes and says that he can’t follow, I grieve the separation, make sure that he has enough money to provide for himself until he finds a job, thank him for his service to the community and let him go without resentment. That’s it. The superior general has spoken. He is the glue that holds the community together.

My point is that to us, the role of the superior general is that of a servant, a father and a leader. He is does not have to ask the brothers for permission to do anything that the Church asks of him. That’s a decision that he makes on his own and for which he alone bears moral responsibility. Bearing moral responsibility for the souls of others is part of the job description of the superior. I face it daily.

Just tonight, I had a community meeting with the brothers and they disagreed with me on the use of habits 24/7. I am for it, they wanted more latitude. We took it to a vote. Everyone but me was on one side. of the room. I simply said, “Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. We’ll do it my way.” No one said a word. In 1221, when the rule was written, there was no room for such a vote. To ask for (name removed by moderator)ut is a matter of courtesy, not of duty. Francis never asked anyone for their opinion. He refused to hear the brothers opinions left and right. In the end, this made him a very powerful superior. The same is true of St. Augustine, St. Benedict, St. Teresa of Avila, Bl. Mother Teresa and many other leaders.

This is my problem with Bishop Fellay. I fail to understand why he did not go through with the reconciliation when he seemed so certain that this was what the pope wanted. He said it several times, “This is what the Holy Father wants.” If this is what the Holy Father wants for your community and you’re the superior general, then you have the power to make it happen.

What part am I missing here? I welcome clarification, because this has always bothered me when dealing with many superiors who in my mind seem to abdicate responsibility for the people whom they should be governing and leading.

Thanks in advance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[poche]

I say that we should pray for the situation to be such that they accept the arrangement that the holy father has offered to them.

 

[Phyllo]

Just a point of info: Catholic Family News which you can find on the web has had articles keeping its readers up to date on this topic. Maybe if you click onto the site you will find these articles archived.

cfnews.org/sspx-obl.htm

here is a start.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. And yes, I am learning as I go along. In defence of wiki, it is always a good starting point for further research. They have yet to acquire the reputation of being biased or dishonest, it is just that their function is not specific & academic. But, then it would cease to be wiki, would it not?

I won’t take up your suggestion to read more about Franco or any other war monger. lthough my hobby is table top war gaming, I intensely dislike those types who are able to blood-let - even in the best of causes. I would opt for peace talks and not pandering to the ego’s of those few in positions of power who decided on and use people like weapons, to be hurled against each other in slaughter until victory is attained.

I know the argument of defending in a just cause, and there is some validity to it, but think that peace talks are seldom favored where the war machine is concerned.

I can only repeat here, that I would like to think that I would not have sided with Franco in any way, but the frailty of human nature & cowardice probably would have made a moral traitor of me. Unless, of course, grace came to my assistance. To have supported in any way, such a **rapacious, vainglorious & morally offensive **individual as Franco and what he stood for would really have been soul destroying.

Whether or not God used him to assist catholics and defend the country from Marxists control remains to be proven I believe. It is perhaps not such as straight line as all that. That catholics & religious institutions escaped death is something of a secondary reason that supports this conclusion.
Catholics have and probably always will get caught up in the cross-fire, so many examples up to the present day attest to that. Especially where the Church has missionary work.

I do get your point about biased and slanted versions of history, but then again, history is always written by the victors!

When Catholics sided with him, he wasn’t into power yet. Franco persecutions to socialists came after the civil war ended and he began his government. How people would know what things he would did in the future? When he came to aid, people saw a hero against the Red Terror.

“What he stood for…” defense of Catholicism, and Spain. These were the ideals he was supporting. He wasn’t perfect, but way better than the genodical marxists.

When dealing with conservative politics, or Catholicism, wikipedia is mostly biased towards cultural marxism and liberalism. So is no surprise that Franco gets lots of criticism while the other band doesn’t.

And yes, cultural marxism won. Because that, they rewrite history in schools and universities, just like thier Soviet precursors.

Also, peace talks? the socialists wanted the complete anihilation of Catholicism and traditional culture from the face of Spain. I doubt that a peace talk have worked with such bloodthirsty people. I have seen the photos of martyrs, I have read the testimonies. These people were some of the worst killers in the XX century. I hope you are not downplaying or misunderstanding the size of the threat they were (and in certain way, still, because the marxists and anarchists in Latin America and Spain are threatening again with the Church burnings and hateful discourse).

For example, see what they did Nomvember 1st in Argentina, various socialist, pro homosexuality, pro abortion and feminist groups threatened to attack the Cathedral of Buenos Aires. They threw poles, excrement, and bottles to the Catholics stationed there to defend the Cathedral. Make no mistake, these people want us and our religion dead.

In Spanish:

info-caotica.blogspot.com/2012/11/cronica-visual-de-la-defensa-de-la.html

As expected, the local media sided with the socialist, and lied about the nature of the conflict.

In Colombia, similar groups burned a cross and photos of the Attorney General in the capital main plaza, because his opposition to abortion and same sex “marriage”. Now, one well known abortionist, is in a complot with various groups and interantional NGOs to prevent his election to a second term. Also, various newspapers are lying about him, and trying to present him as a dangerous fanatic because he is Catholic. Sadly, the media persecution to Catholicism has begun.

In Spanish:

aciprensa.com/noticias/monica-roa-y-lobby-del-aborto-orquestan-maniobra-internacional-contra-procurador-de-colombia-52285/

Blessings!

 

[Dee_S]

I’ve always been very consistent on two points regarding Bishop Fellay.

This is my problem with Bishop Fellay. I fail to understand why he did not go through with the reconciliation when he seemed so certain that this was what the pope wanted. He said it several times, “This is what the Holy Father wants.” If this is what the Holy Father wants for your community and you’re the superior general, then you have the power to make it happen.

What part am I missing here? I welcome clarification, because this has always bothered me when dealing with many superiors who in my mind seem to abdicate responsibility for the people whom they should be governing and leading.

Thanks in advance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I think I will leave it to one more experienced than myself to try to explain how their line of authority works, but to answer the question of why Bishop Fellay has not yet effected the reconciliation - this Declaration by Ecclesia Dei quoted below sheds quite a bit of light on it for us.

My personal opinion is that he is submitting (as he said in the CNS interview cited above) to the wishes and authority of the Holy Father in spite of his hesitancy which makes him wish for more time. In a recent interview which I will try to source, he said that what was actually pushing him to move towards regularizing their situation was the deep reluctance that he saw in some quarters of the SSPX to any deal at all that would result in a return to Rome. He realised this could only continue if not resolved now, placing them past the point of no return.

He has much to do single handed, as the other three bishops have to date publicly opposed him. Bishop Williamson to the point of expulsion and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais vociferously outspoken that he “will not sign”. Bishop de Galareta more mildly. So holding a General Chapter to give the Superiors of the international districts was wise and possibly humble of him, in order to consolidate.

It is a critical step for the SSPX and their followers - requiring, believe it or not, a sort of blind leap of faith/confidence - to be brought under the direct and practical authority of Rome - whom they fear might either take away or compromise the Faith they hold so dear.

Monday, October 29, 2012

**DECLARATION OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION “ECCLESIA DEI” **

VATICAN CITY, (VIS) - The following English-language declaration was issued this morning by the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

"The Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ takes this occasion to announce that, in its most recent official communication (6 September 2012), the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has indicated that additional time for reflection and study is needed on their part as they prepare their response to the Holy See’s latest initiatives.

"The current stage in the ongoing discussions between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity follows three years of doctrinal and theological dialogues during which a joint commission met eight times to study and discuss, among other matters, some disputed issues in the interpretation of certain documents of Vatican Council II. Once these doctrinal dialogues were concluded, it became possible to proceed to a phase of discussion more directly focused on the greatly desired reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter.

"Other critical steps in this positive process of gradual reintegration had already been taken by the Holy See in 2007 with the extension of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite to the Universal Church by the Motu Proprio ‘Summorum Pontificum’ and in 2009 with the lifting of the excommunications. Just a few months ago, a culminating point along this difficult path was reached when, on 13 June 2012, the Pontifical Commission presented to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X a doctrinal declaration together with a proposal for the canonical normalisation of its status within the Catholic Church.

“At the present time, the Holy See is awaiting the official response of the superiors of the Priestly Fraternity to these two documents. After thirty years of separation, it is understandable that time is needed to absorb the significance of these recent developments. As Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI seeks to foster and preserve the unity of the Church by realising the long hoped-for reconciliation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X with the See of Peter - a dramatic manifestation of the ‘munus Petrinum’ in action - patience, serenity, perseverance and trust are needed”.
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/10/declaration-of-pontifical-commission_29.html