NEO-SSPX WATCH: "DANGER OF SCHISM?"
It is rumored that Msgr. Fellay does not want to be re-elected or would reject a nomination if asked. Who knows? In
any case, the high commanders of the Society are intensifying their
efforts to equip those who will attend the meeting with the points of
discussion that are needed to repel those who preserve the wisdom of
Bishop Lefebvre on the FSSPX-Rome relations.
This clever public relations campaign is what was behind Dr. Brian MaCall's article on the unity of the FSSPX, published in Cathilic Family News in January. It was also what led Fr. Paul Robinson to write his essay on the integrity of Msgr. Lefebvre who appeared on SSPX.org. It was also what motivated Fr. Dominique Bourmaud to write an article for the December edition of Rhe Angelus where he defends the cause of conciliation.
In his article, Fr. Bourmaud affirms that there is a "real danger" if the SSPX "ignores" the "Pope and the bishops". The
danger is that the SSPX would be "turning our small communities into
religious ghettos" if it refuses to "show due respect" to the
"ecclesiastical superiors".
Father
Bourmaud affirms that refusing to show due respect to the Pope would
mean that the SSPX has - effectively - fallen into sedevacantism. The FSSPX would adopt a "schismatic attitude" if it does not reach an agreement with Rome, he insinuates. An
agreement with Rome is essential to prevent the SSPX from falling into a
"schismatic", "dangerous", "ghetto" mentality, as is the case with the
Resistance.
Bourmaud,
whether he knows it or not, borrows, almost word for word, the
arguments of Dom Gerard, the priests of the diocese of Campos, and of
Father Aulagnier; arguments widely refuted by the SSPX decades ago.
In 2003, Fr. Aulagnier was expelled from the FSSPX because he spoke publicly in favor of an agreement with the conciliar church. He was interviewed by The Wanderer about his reasons. His argument was exactly the same as Father Bourmaud:
"I think there is a danger that this conflict will last for centuries. The Church is a visible and hierarchical society. If one lives too long in an autarky, one ends up losing the meaning of what a hierarchy is. So we are in danger . "
If we remain satisfied with our situation, then there is danger of a " psychological schism ", he added.
Father Violette, the District Superior in Canada at that time, refuted Father Aulagnier with logic, prudential judgment and recourse to Bishop Lefebvre:
Father Aulagnier has "created
an extremely difficult situation within the Fraternity, trying to
convince its members to make an agreement with Rome, also trying to
cause division and even rebellion against legitimate authority , " wrote the P Violette.
"Our Resistance is not a rebellion . It
is the necessary attitude of Catholics who want to preserve the faith
when confronting prelates who attack, deny or threaten it. "
"The
fact that we keep the faith and continue talking to the Roman
authorities shows that there is no danger of schism, because we
recognize its authority."
"The solution to this crisis will come from Rome, when the Roman authorities return to the integrity of the faith . But until this happens, we do well to continue our resistance . The time this lasts is not our problem, but God's. Because
we can not, in the interest of a false unity, unite ourselves with
those who promote error, nor with those who reduce the Church to a human
institution ... "
"As Monsignor Lefebvre said: in breaking with their predecessors, it is the same modern Roman authorities who are schismatic ." When Rome returns to faith, the only topic of discussion will be who will become Bishop and to whom he will replace. "
This
is precisely what the Resistance believes, despite being ridiculed as
"sedevacantists" by the current authorities of the SSPX.
In 2014, Fr. Simoulin invoked the same argument of Fr. Aulagnier in an article entitled "The great question that is posed to us".
"Then,
we must open our eyes to another danger, which is not hypothetical but
actual: that of not aspiring to retake our legitimate place among the
societies recognized by Rome, lose the desire of the Church and Rome . No longer wishing the normal bond with Rome and the Church, is the shadow of the schismatic spirit . "
Again, it is only necessary to read Mons. Lefebvre's interviews one year and two years after the Consecrations to know how to respond to this.
When the Archbishop was asked about the danger of schism, he responded by saying: "I do not say that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said it. Nobody can reproach me for having never wanted to consider myself a pope. But we truly represent the Catholic Church as it was at all times since we continue what she has always done. It is we who possess the notes of the visible Church: unity, catholicity, apostolicity, holiness. This is what constitutes the visible Church. "
A year later he said: "We are in the middle of a great combat, a great combat. We are fighting a battle guaranteed by the whole line of potatoes. Therefore,
we should not have any doubt or fear, doubt like: "why should we go on
our own? After all, why do not you join Rome and the Pope?" Yes,
if Rome and the Pope were in agreement with the Tradition, if they
carried forward the work of all the Popes of the nineteenth century and
the first half of the twentieth, of course. But they admit they have taken a new path. "
"It is the fight of the City of Satan against the City of God, clearly, so we do not have to worry, we must trust in the grace of God."
He said then that " we should not doubt " because the way in which the crisis will end is a "mystery of God". "Neither should we hesitate for not being with those who are in the process of betraying us."
Note
that in Mons. Lefebvre there is no "fear" or "concern" that the
"ghetto" or the "schismatic" mentality be established in the SSPX. He is completely at peace and happy because he is not in relationship with those who are destroying the Church.
The
Benedictine monk Dom Gerard also had as an argument that being in an
"irregular" relationship with Rome would have a negative effect on
souls, claiming, in the late 1980s, that if the "tradition of the
Church" were "pushed out of their official and visible perimeter, "then
there would be damage to souls.
Father Schmidberger, then Superior of the FSSPX, refuted Dom Gérard:
"It seems rather contrary to the plan of Divine Providence that the Catholic Tradition of the Church be reintegrated into the pluralism of the conciliar church , while the latter disgraces the Catholic Church and scandalizes its unity and visibility," he wrote.
" It is an honor for Le Barroux to have been rejected
by the other Benedictines for their integral fidelity to the Mass of
all times, and to have become a wonderful sign of contradiction ... when
the laws of the Church are abused everywhere ... it is better Do not succumb to this scheme . "
In his book on the time bombs of Vatican II, Fr. Schmidberger expressed similar satisfaction for being outside the confines of the conciliar church:
"Dear friends, in these circumstances I have to warn you against illusions and false solutions to this problem ." The problem will not be solved by naming here a conservative bishop who still wears the collar or who is still a little Marian or who has personal devotion to him. Pope, the
solution to this problem will not be to establish a Society, like the
one in San Pedro ... and to give this Society here and there the right
to celebrate the traditional Mass . Nor will the solution be in a mass pardoned here and there. . "
And yet, strangely enough, Fr. Schmidberger wrote a letter in 2016 indicating that he adopted the scrupulous position of Fr. Aulagnier. Here is the outstanding paragraph of the letter:
"We
must not lose sight of the danger that the faithful and some confreres
get used to the abnormal situation and see it as normal. [...]
If the faithful or the brothers feel comfortable in this situation of
freedom regarding the dependence of the hierarchy, then this implies a
gradual loss of the sensus ecclesiae ".
What can be said in response to such a situation?
The
argument that the FSSPX would side with the "schism" or adopt a
"ghetto" mentality because it does not accept a deal with Rome is 1)
completely and absolutely fallacious 2) was refuted and never believed
by Bishop Lefebvre 3) is a line of argument used by the "traditional"
priests who wanted to make an agreement with Rome and 4) is a line of
argument refuted in depth again and again by the superiors of the SSPX
since the late 1980s.
That the FSSPX, 2018, has published an article in The Angelus
that uses word for word the same arguments of Fr. Aulagnier, indicates
that the FSSPX has been directed by liberal forces totally disinterested
in maintaining the policies of the past of the SSPX.
When
publishing the article by Fr. Bourmaud, the SSPX has shown 1) that they
have in fact changed their position regarding Rome 2) that they have
departed from the grave words of Msgr. Lefebvre, Fr. Violette and Fr.
Schmidberger, and 3 ) who are taking the same wrong arguments from Dom
Gerard, Campos and other SSPX priests who joined the Conciliar Church in
past years.
The
FSSPX has no rational arguments about how it can reach an agreement
with Rome without betraying its old position with respect to the
conciliar church. They have become those same groups and priests that they once rejected as traitors.
May those faithful who have eyes to see the contradictions of the SSPX remain strong in the faith. The SSPX priests no longer see what they are doing and are blind guiding the blind to the well. As it is written, "even the elect will be deceived."
SOURCE
No comments:
Post a Comment