'Traditionalist' order recalls seminarians from Lefebvrite seminary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Padua_Minded
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Padua_Minded

Guest
The Transalpine Redemptorists in Scotland (traditionally supporters of Lefebvrism) recently recalled their seminarians from the Lefebvrist Holy Cross Seminary in Australia after the suspended Lefebvrite rector, Fr Peter Scott, tried to splinter the group, so as to prevent their reconciliation with Rome.

The Redemptorists announced their intention on March 09 2008 to return to the Catholic Church. Fr Mary Michael, the Superior of the order advised Fr Peter Scott of his decision, before the new seminary year began. The following day, Fr Peter Scott, said

“…I am very happy to hear that the Brothers will be coming back to Holy Cross to continue their studies. They are not only welcome, but very edifying for all of us. I am certainly not one of those narrow-minded persons who is unwilling to tolerate a difference of opinion on issues, and I am fully aware of the fact that as your own community, you the Redemptorists must make your own decisions, without in the slightest questioning the extraordinary wisdom, equilibrium and catholic sense of Bishop Fellay and his counsel. I am confident that these ripples will not affect our union in the combat of the Faith and for the conversion of souls, starting with our own. Please be assured of my prayers. …”

However on the second day after the arrival of the brothers to the Lefebvrite seminary, Fr Peter Scott called one of the brothers to his office and suggested to him that a breakaway community be formed so as to stop the order reconciling with Rome. This was then suggested to all of the brothers there.

Fr Michael Mary also received an email from the SSPX the following day telling him that if the Redemptorists made an agreement with Rome, the brothers would no longer be welcome at any Lefebvrite seminary.

The Redemptorists are now planning to reconcile with the Catholic Church, and have had two informal discussions with a Redemptorist bishop in Rome. They face staunch opposition from the Lefebvrists and they have little money of their own. I ask you all for your prayers that they may return to the barque of Peter.

Also please take a look at their blog. Some delightful pictures to be seen.
 
Not all of the Transalpine Redemptorists are ready for such “negotiations”:

St Aloysius Retreat Center
19101 Bear Creek Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
(408) 354-7703

Open Letter to Fr Michael Mary

1 May 2008
in Ascensione Domini

Dear Fr Michael Mary,

Laudetur Jesus et Maria semper Virgo.

As it is clear from your blog concerning your “Declaration on Relations with Rome” that you intend on following a path opposed to that of the SSPX, and which you had us promise to follow by virtue of our vow of Fidelity to the Superior General of the SSPX, it is likewise clear that the present course taken by our superiors is unacceptable to us before God and conscience.

As it would be unconscionable for the superiors to force our confreres to accept something contrary to conscience, please inform the confreres that there will be a new foundation, in God’s time, for any who are willing to remain faithful to the integrity of the position held by the SSPX. They should be made to feel free in conscience to contact me about this.

As for those who wish to depart from the way we have taken for so many years, I wish you all the best for the future. I trust that you will continue to keep me in your prayers, as I have kept, and always will keep, your spiritual welfare in my own.

As our holy Father St Alphonsus would say: Arrivaderci a cielo!

Devotedly,

Fr Alphonsus Maria, C.SS.R.
 
It is indeed truly sad and scandalous that certain members of this order have apparently been so brainwashed by anti-Catholicism (that so deeply permeates the Lefebvrist cult) that they refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. May God have mercy on their souls.

“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” [Lumen Gentium 14]
 
Padua_Minded said:
It is indeed truly sad and scandalous that certain members of this order have apparently been so brainwashed by anti-Catholicism (that so deeply permeates the Lefebvrist cult)
Click to expand...
Quite far enough. First of all, how are the SSPX in any way anti-Catholic? Second of all, “Lefebvrism” or “Lefebvrist” implies that they are in some way heretics, as this kind of labeling is usually reserved for that kind of ilk (ex. Arians, Nestorians, etc.) (it’s also against forum rules to call them such, read the rules please) Now, how are the SSPX heretics? What Dogma of the Church do they reject? The SSPX contains some of the only priests and bishops who will stand up for the Catholic Faith and criticize the rampant false ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, modernism, liberalism, etc. that has so consumed Rome since Vatican II. They are most assuredly Catholic. I refuse to believe that Cardinal Kasper, the Neocatechumenal Way, etc. are in the Church, but somehow one of the only groups that actually is Catholic, is somehow not.
that they refuse to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Click to expand...
Accept that they don’t. Try again.
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” [Lumen Gentium 14]
Click to expand...
That’s nice. Too bad the SSPX is within the Church. Read the letter accompanying the Motu Propio where Pope Benedict XVI speaks of an “internal reconciliation.” The only thing they can be accused of is being in a canonically irregular situation. You’ve taken your anti-SSPX rant much, much, too far and have spread falsehoods regarding their position. Calumny, pure calumny.
 
SemperFidelis:

The assertion - as I read it - was not that the SSPX is anti-Catholic, but rather thus: (i) the spirit of refusal to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is anti-Catholic; and (ii) the SSPX has sadly taken up this spirit, and is thus becoming quasi-anti-Catholic.

SSPX is within the Church, but is in an canonically irregular position. That needs to be regularised.

If it helps any, I sympathise with what you’re saying. I do not like some of the rude behaviour that comes out of SSPX; I think it’s going a bit too far. But equally, I think those who claim SSPX is outside the Church need to think about what they are claiming.
 
markadm said:
the SSPX has sadly taken up this spirit
Click to expand...
But they are not taking up this spirit because they recognize they are subject to the Pope. However, at times it is our duty and is required of us as Catholics to resist the Pope when he goes against the Ancient Traditions and teachings of the Faith. I speak specifically of religious liberty, false ecumenism, collegiality, loss of everything Sacred, etc. Read post #59 on this thread to get the Catholic “take” on such resistance:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=224170&page=4&highlight=St.+Vincent
SSPX is within the Church, but is in an canonically irregular position. That needs to be regularised.
Click to expand...
If it helps any, I sympathise with what you’re saying. I do not like some of the rude behaviour that comes out of SSPX; I think it’s going a bit too far. But equally, I think those who claim SSPX is outside the Church need to think about what they are claiming.
Click to expand...
I agree for the most part with what you’re saying and I thank you for being charitable and willing to discuss without emotion, the position of the SSPX. This is a much better response then the “usual” on this forum: “The SSPX are a protestant cult, (and I scream words like): LEFEBVRISM, LEFEBVRITE, FUNDAMENTALIST, HERETIC, SCHISMATIC, CULT” and the list goes on and on…
 
SemperFidelis said:
Quite far enough. First of all, how are the SSPX in any way anti-Catholic?
Click to expand...
I can not speak for all members, but there have been some here that are so firmly convinced they know better than the Holy Father, that they have argued that it is better to go to an SSPX parish than an ordinary form in a faithful parish. They have encouraged this defection in others. Formenting rebellion in the Church is not only anti-Catholic, it is also extremely arrogant to elevate one’s own opinion to such a high state.
 
pnewton said:
I can not speak for all members, but there have been some here that are so firmly convinced they know better than the Holy Father, that they have argued that it is better to go to an SSPX parish than an ordinary form in a faithful parish. They have encouraged this defection in others. Formenting rebellion in the Church is not only anti-Catholic, it is also extremely arrogant to elevate one’s own opinion to such a high state.
Click to expand...
Read my link in post #6. I most assuredly know that the NO as celebrated in my hometown is detrimental to my Faith. The NO itself is one of the reasons I second guessed converting to Catholicism in the first place. I have to drive an hour to go to a TLM every other Sunday. I drive to the same city on the “off-Sundays” so that I can go to a Melkite Church and avoid the NO alltogether. If there was an SSPX Parish remotely close to where I live, I would no doubt be there every Sunday. I’ll go to where they teach and believe in the Catholic Faith and act according to that Faith, not somewhere where they question it. The fact that the parish down the street (where they have heretical RCIA classes and a Mass that almost no Saint would recognize) is in full communion, but the SSPX is “not” results in some kind of bizzaro world, and it’s making my head spin.
 
SemperFidelis said:
I agree for the most part with what you’re saying and I thank you for being charitable and willing to discuss without emotion, the position of the SSPX. This is a much better response then the “usual” on this forum: “The SSPX are a protestant cult, (and I scream words like): LEFEBVRISM, LEFEBVRITE, FUNDAMENTALIST, HERETIC, SCHISMATIC, CULT” and the list goes on and on…
Click to expand...
No worries; I do not think it is right to throw names at people. It clouds the issues sometimes; or rather, it forces us into automatically labelling things according to conditioned labels, which means one has not thought about why the label may or may not be applied before labelling it!

Better say “Group X is Y, I think. Okay, let’s examine why they may be Y”…
SemperFidelis said:
But they are not taking up this spirit because they recognize they are subject to the Pope. However, at times it is our duty and is required of us as Catholics to resist the Pope when he goes against the Ancient Traditions and teachings of the Faith. I speak specifically of religious liberty, false ecumenism, collegiality, loss of everything Sacred, etc. Read post #59 on this thread to get the Catholic “take” on such resistance:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=224170&page=4&highlight=St.+Vincent
Click to expand...
I looked at that post, and naturally recognise the authority of the tradition of the Church in those Saints and holy figures quoted. However, I still maintain that the SSPX might do itself a favour if there was a greater co-operation with the See of Peter, and in particular the incumbent(!)…who is not exactly known for being a crazy liberal.
 
I know I’m no moderator, but I thought it important to draw something to everyone’s attention here:

All other discussions aside, SemperFidelis has reminded us of the plight of many who simply cannot get away from bad Masses and liturgical abuse!

I myself now gladly commute an hour to go to the FSSP Parish in town, and am justbaout completely withdrawn from Parish life, sadly (and this is a Parish that only has bad music, and some EMHC problems)… I don’t know what I’d do if there was no TLM near here!

Apologies for losing the track here, but I think I wanted to highlight that on occasion, as Card. Castrillon Hoyos has stated, there is no harm in going to SSPX Masses, despite their “irregular” position (that I doubt the SSPX would dispute either; NB I have not said the “e”-word), provided it is for reasons of security of faith and not political posturing.

Someone let me know if that made any sense. It’s getting late here.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Two very solid posts. Thank you markadm and God Bless!
Click to expand...
You’re very welcome. I’m glad it was intelligible (like I said, it’s late on a Friday!).

To be blunt, there are those that call the Holy Father all sorts of nasty names, and then get all holier-than-thou and point to themselves and call themselves Catholic. I don’t think that’s right.

And yet, at the same time, there are those who are simply trying to do the best with what they have. Some of those just happen to be in the SSPX.

(Disclosure: I have nothing, zip, nada, to do with SSPX myself…and truth be told, I do not like the tone of the polemic coming from the UK newsletters, but that is to do with the first “blunt paragraph” and not the second!)

God bless,
Mark
 
Well, back to the first two posts, SemperFidelis, you seem to switch sides, or maybe it is just me.

In the first post, we were talking about how a group of people who had broken away from the Church a while ago were coming home. (I don’t care if they only slightly broke, they were broken.) Then you SemperFidelis, posted

I got to go will finish later sorry!😦
 
Margarite said:
Well, back to the first two posts, SemperFidelis, you seem to switch sides, or maybe it is just me.

In the first post, we were talking about how a group of people who had broken away from the Church a while ago were coming home. (I don’t care if they only slightly broke, they were broken.) Then you SemperFidelis, posted

I got to go will finish later sorry!😦
Click to expand...
I’ll wait until you finish, but I just re-read all of my posts and I don’t see how they are all not consistent with each other.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Read my link in post #6.
Click to expand...
I remember the link, as well as the question it avoided. In fact, I asked it. The point being, while stringing sayings of the saints together in a type of prooftexting may justify one’s actions, it misses the bigger question of applying these sayings and determining what truth is in them. Not everything ever said by a saint or theologian is infallible. Applying the truth that is there to the SSPX is a bigger problem. The great theologian John Paul II did not agree, as did is successor. By great, I mean a more knowledgable theologian than those posting here or else where in the blogosphere.

The difference of opinion underscores the importance of authority in the Chuch. We would be better off sola scriptura and let each judge the Bible for them self than the SSPX brand of sola scriptura/tradition, where each determines what Catholic Tradition is for them self. Defying the authority of the Church to the point the SSPX denies the one tradition that uniquely define the Catholic Church: where the bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic Church.
 
I am pleased to learn of the reunification attempts by these
Redemptorists. And IF the SSPX is all cozy in union with Rome as some say, then why in the world would ‘they’ be upset over these Redemptorists making it official? That does not make sense. Rather those in the SSPX who are incensed by this action show that they do consider themselves a separate entity from Rome. Hmmm.

I have had many discussions with SSPXers. The Pope bashing bothers me quite a bit. Some have not gotten over Pope JPII kissing the koran in 1986. Time to get over that. yes, I know there
there are MANY other issues. But I can never and will never leave "peter’. I am willing to make a move to another city, which-God willing- will happen later this summer to be able to attend a more faithful parish and have access to an FSSP Mass. It is very important and I have endured a long time in this modernist place and my heart has hurt many times. Sometimes we have these things to suffer and offer to the Lord.

Saints died to witness the primacy of Peter. We must stay in union with him.

Ave Maria!
 
Ave_Maria said:
I have had many discussions with SSPXers. The Pope bashing bothers me quite a bit. Some have not gotten over Pope JPII kissing the koran in 1986.
Click to expand...
This is very true. But there are a lot of SSPX Mass attendees who do not bash the Pope and are quite aware his name is mentioned in the Canon and are quite OK with it. And as far as the Koran-kissing incident, there are a lot of NO people who are bothered by it too. At least they have a tough time defending it.

The FSSP is a great order. I hope you will continue to support them.
 
Just how big is this group?

Despite all the "noise’ since the MP have any seperated traditionalists returned? As a group. All i can recall is about 8 sisters frvom a traditionalist group in Seattle.

The initial enthusiasm for the EF has subsided. Big crowds at the first masses have dwindled significantly.

I think the fears of the NO bishops and lay that the EF would some how enroach more and more on the NO are unfounded. It seems like just a small group of faithful want it. No matter how liberal the allowance.The experience of the FSSP seems pertinent. Virtually all of their apostolates remain small/stagnant. many years in existence. Attracting few converts and apparently not a lot of folks from the NO in their areas. .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top