Vias tuas Domine
27 March 2013.
Dear Father Laisney
As you helped our cause in the past, I was surprised to see your latest attack against our small (a bishop, 50 priests --- including the new 6 March --- 3 monasteries, one in Carmel Germany) resistance réconciliaire SSPX priest that Couture has recommended itself in the pulpit. It is a sign that liberalism is spreading with the blessing of the authorities. Thank you for merely 3 pages of fallacies that are a good summary of the falsehoods that are thrown in our faces.
Fallacy # 1 IT IS GOOD TO BE REGULATED NOW
You start by saying that we have failed to demonstrate that Bishop Fellay is wrong ... Well, but prove it!
We especially mention his own words and his writings. If we say that the statement of April 15 is slander you will be the first to think that the statement of April 15 is a forgery. The dual language Menzigen is a process in progress and well-documented, based on the idea that Vatican II and the New Mass can be improved and we can not ask the New Order of the sentence. (Interview of 15 February News France ).
The regularization is like a toothpick, indifferent, which means that I can pique the eye with my little sister. A priest does not have to be regulated by Robespierre but the good Pope Pius VI. But no, you say that we must be in good standing because the law is order. "Order!" said the moderator of the English Parliament. Unfortunately, the Novus Ordo is an order of name. This is the disorder, diabolical disorientation, as said Sister Lucia of Fatima and Archbishop Lefebvre told us "to submit to evil obedience is a sin" ... The day of judgment, God [do not ask us] if we obeyed the infidels authorities (9 August 1986).
Why do not you give the faithful following the definition of the law? This is unfair. A law is an ordinance of reason given by the group leader for the common good of the community.
Is it reasonable to be in good standing with the demolition of the church? What happened to the common good of Campos, of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the Institute of Christ the King, the Fraternity of Saint Peter?
When Faith is in danger Canon Law sets rule those who refuse to swim with sharks. So ... we need another fallacy.
Fallacy # 2 NEW POPE AND LIBERALS ARE BAD BUT NOT HERETICS.
To be in communion with the sharks, they must prove that they are sharks are charitable, accepting ourselves as we are, their prey, while we make a clear distinction between what is good in them which is a little cruel.
Again, you should have told us, the ignorant readers, what is Donatism (a rigorous heresy people in sin should be avoided at all and can not administer sacraments valid.)
But no, we're talking about the Liberals willingly to those of the Novus Ordo and non-Catholics and even they are welcome at our Masses, but we condemn their erroneous ways of acting. This is what we do and I think it is Catholic. As part of a club of sinners, while trying, with God's grace, let us clear, inviting sinners, even liberal, I do not see how you compare us to the Donatists ... Unless your stomach refuses to digest that we call things by their name. All sinners are not heretics but heretics are particularly dangerous kind and that we should avoid (do I prove it?).
According to you, the best way not to see the heretics is not to see the heresies, such as prevent the publication in English of Bishop Tissier book that sells well in France and proves that Benedict XVI is a heretic. I would have thought: if we want a better Rome everything we need to do is to say that these things are not super heresies and draw attention to the "traditional" Benedict XVI gestures avoiding careful to say that he blessed an Islamic center, which he called a Freemason at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, he recited Vespers with Protestants at St. Paul outside the walls, he prepared the beatification of Paul VI etc ... Most of this information is not on KID or SSPX.org but must be laboriously look elsewhere.
So how can you say that you resist liberalism when you refuse to expose the heresies (much worse)? How the Chapter may claim it to keep the freedom to refute errors when, even before being regularized, all we see is a deafening silence on the scandals of the current papacy.
Fallacy No. 3: THE NEW POPE IS NOT LIBERAL.
Si Si No No Cardinal Ratzinger called a "Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith without Faith." All those who have studied his writings came to the same conclusion. It is not liberal to the same degree that Dupanloup and Montalembert. But rejoice, we now have the Pope Francis. Despairing of finding nothing on KID or sspx.org I followed his inaugural Mass on Youtube ... It was the new religion women by reading, communion to pro-abortions Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, the representatives of false religions beside the altar, on the side of the Gospel, the ring of Pope Paul VI, prayer at the tomb of St. Peter with the schismatic Patriarch, clothing novus ordo, liturgical abuses of all kinds, a leftist sermon, the allegiance of a handful of cardinals standing etc.. I'm not talking about other aspects of the Jesuit pope, there are many and much larger than those we reported the abbot Bouchacourt.
Although you can expect that many of the faithful will not check the facts, I think the Pope François will make it harder to prove that Rome has changed you ... except for the worse. If you persevere in this liberal blindness, a little less perhaps than other degrees of liberalism, expect that the ongoing crisis in the SSPX. Do you really want that other priests join us?
If I were Bishop Fellay, I humbly admit that "I have misrepresented the situation and extent of heresy in Rome" or "it's going from bad to worse in Rome, we denounce and we exclude all agree with her. " But we have no evidence of that. God help you to see things with the new pope is much less dangerous for us because it is less ambiguous. The label matches the contents of the bottle, so with Benedict XVI had even pretty red shoes.
Fallacy 4: MUST JOIN THE CHURCH VISIBLE.
Your next paragraph is a bit complex and I admit that the arguments of Anglicanism are a bit pushed. But the fact remains that your reasoning, which is a cover of the infamous letter of April 14, Bishop Fellay, is the fallacy of Dom Gerard to give Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. As you quote brilliantly later, a new church "is clearly manifested" after Vatican II. What we have is a complete tangle of truth and error, with good faith and that rotten members. In such a mixture in which it is difficult to distinguish the wheat from the chaff as we do? Are we going to land? No! God knows how it all unravel in his time.
In the meantime, we remain committed as much as possible the visible Catholic Church, praying and acknowledging Pope (s) and bishops, showing courtesy to the Novus Ordo priests of our communities, sometimes getting permission serve us beautiful churches and by abstaining from all that the people of New Order are bad. But for you, liberals, like the foolish Galatians once, it is, in the words of Bishop Williamson, salvation through porridge . Want to be involved in this inextricable canonically boiled and chewingumesque. You have learned nothing from past experiences and the fact that the situation is worse in Rome (Pope François Müller, Kasper, Bertone, etc. ..) does not change your thinking. Good luck! You will be part of the parliament of religions before being trampled as the Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay [note: name of the island where the Redemptorists live]. There are more important things in life than having papers. We weep bitterly because humanity has lost its visible means of salvation, because the visible Church has lost its missionary identity Vatican countless souls are falling like snowflakes in hell. No, Father, we love more visible than you think Church. Teaching the faith to all nations as Our Lord has asked for is an act of visibility that is no longer found in the Church [conciliar]. It is very sad to see you follow the false proposals Bishop Noia.
Fallacy No. 5: MGR FELLAY FIGHTING VATICAN II.
How do you reconcile what you say then with the statement that Archbishop Lefebvre did in June 1976: "Since the pope, bishops, priests and faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church . " During the same month during which you say he was faithful, Bishop Fellay carefully wrote his doctrinal preamble could be the manifesto of any doctrinal movement Ecclesia Dei movement. Surprisingly, the Pope could not accept it, for political reasons that we do not yet know, or because he did not trust any of catching and the SSPX.
If he had accepted, we would recognize now Vatican validity and legitimacy of the new Mass, the validity of all the sacraments of the New Order, even doubtful sacraments of confirmation and order. We would agree the profession of faith in 1989 which includes submission to Vatican II and we would follow the current magisterium, in the words of Lumen Gentium 25. We should say that religious freedom is reconcilable with Tradition (albeit with difficulty). We had our own canon law, not to mention the old code that Archbishop Lefebvre asked us to follow.
This is a complete liquidation and as the brother of Pope Benedict XVI was much grieved at not having been able to buy from us.
But on July 14, the General Chapter has deployed a large poster: FOR SALE!
Look past the disturbing statements, interviews, especially the CNS, the letter of April 14, the six conditions, the words of two assistants, and the case is heard: Bishop Fellay fighting may Vatican ... with ¼ of its energy.
Fallacy 6: ROME IS CLOSER TO THE TRADITION
The triumphant election and installation of François 1er perfectly confirms that "real effort" to Rome to return to Tradition was only one phase of the Revolution. We often need to move back to better jump. You will learn the lessons of Pope Francis and will you more cautious? Considering the silence of the official sites of the SSPX, I'm afraid not. But it can give more time for good anti-liberal priests who are still part of the official Brotherhood (and there are many), to open the eyes, if you still think you do recognize the new modernist Rome triumphant. We also need more time to prepare the rescue boat, I also believe that the pope François retain Bishop Fellay, at least I hope so.
Fallacy 7: IS BETTER THAN CURE FOR DISEASE PREVENTION.
You want us to expect the arrival of the New Mass, Vatican II and all its paraphernalia in our chapels to react. You want to allow ourselves once again fool and we are forced to swim to another boat only once it has sunk to the bottom. But, Father, we have been fooled once, and in a big way by the Council. We studied in detail the process and we found that the same process was used for those who have abandoned the fight to Archbishop Lefebvre. Do you really want us to be fooled again? Before acting, we should wait for the official acceptance of Vatican II, it is wrapped in a two-way language and accompanied by pedaling backwards apparent.
But it is precisely this ambiguous language that stimulates us to action, lest the simple souls deceived.
Our task is difficult and in your eyes it is moved but we must make sure it remains a fairly large group of resistance when you want reconciliation as will.
Your determination to return to the Established Church of Novus Ordo in turn feeds our own determination.
Fallacy 8: PRAY, PAY AND OBEY.
Your last paragraph speaks directly to Williamson, the current leader of the resistance.
I do not know, Father, if you realize that obedience is your main weapon just like the Novus Ordo done vis-à-vis the SSPX, and the 50 we note with sadness that this is the only answer offered to our doctrinal problems.
So we can understand the perplexity of Bishop Williamson to want to create a strong bond of obedience as this is the second time we actually enforce obedience for us to disobey God.
Some of us would like to establish an organization, an army, like the first Jesuits, but His Excellency does not promote the idea and would not accept to be part of, or lead a seminar. Our people also yearn for the security of an organized body of priests, they want the United combatants in a global network. So what do we do? Guess? We obey Williamson confident that the need for "Marian army" gradually emerge from the bonds of love between us, the need to provide the sacraments and the priesthood help families in need. Regional leaders are already emerging as the Father Pfeiffer in North America, Dom Thomas in South America, Father Pinaud, I think, in France. Father Ringrose is a good leader in its field and Father Ortiz happily work with him. I already sent my double canonical documents Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
Notice that prophesied that there would be "the mischief", "we do not hold together." The facts belie: we have contacts and we help each other doctrinally, financially and spiritually. No, it is not chaos among us. We are a fledgling organization developing.
Our competitors would have us take hasty decisions, but at the moment we are only rejected by the SSPX priests and try to survive the shock. Our vows and promises we observe in pain, homeless for a year. We have nothing in the bank.
After this breach of trust on the part of the authorities it is also difficult for the faithful to move (the authority should sometimes try to win the confidence of his subjects). Some followers are ostracized, others can not stand the liberalism of some local priests ... and must be content with infrequent visits from a missionary that covers a vast territory. But there lucky Vienna Virginia Los Angeles (Perez Abbot), Florida, Brazil etc. ... Do not you worry, Father, if we do not have a frame according to your desires, a well-defined framework is to think of a better structure. Think about it, two 12-year periods, for a general superior ... It is a quarter of a century!
To end on a cheerful note talking about the bitter zeal. Several questions arise: Who left the embittered meal before the end because he could not restrain his anger and repeated experience elsewhere? Which we refused absolution? Who says small village we were schismatics? Who wants us to eat in the library and we said Mass in our rooms? Who refuses to talk to us, even to test his argument in private? Who told us that it was illegal for us to go in the chapels and the properties of the SSPX? Who excommunicated the faithful in the United States and Italy? Who told Dom Cyprian throw out Dom Raphael?
No, Father, I will not refuse you absolution because you are deluding yourself, and I will not refuse to give you a beer I like (Guinness bitter, I admit). Come anytime at my table or spend a moment in front of a mirror. I do not think you go to hell for it. We might even share some whiskey Priory Singapore because there are still some good bottles in the SSPX. Without putting you in beer, I raise my beer bitter and wish you many not be as bitter as me.
In Iesu and Maria.
François Chazal +
Read more: http://cor-mariae.proboards.com/thread/358#ixzz2hH3ztJEl