|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 26, 2013 21:09:42 GMT
Alasdair; the SSPX supporters' disruption of the Holocaust memorial service in Buenos Aires cathedral has already been noticed on this thread - look at the end of the last page (25) and the beginning of this one.
One reason I have heard mentioned (I am not sure of the source) is that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted more than one bishop because he believed some cataclysm (perhaps World War III) was imminent which might prevent inter-continental travel long-term, so he wanted a bishop on each continent. In other words, the breaking-point for him may not have been the delay but the offer of only one bishop. (I have also seen SSPXers on some of their sites suggest that Rome might have nominated an unreliable bishop who would have waited until Lefebvre and Castro Mayor were safely dead and then broken with the SSPX and left them up the creek, though I do not know if this motivated Lefebvre himself - it may be a bit of ex post facto supposition by SSPXers who regard the indult trad defectors from the SSPX as having been Trojan horses all along.)
An interesting thought - Archbishop LEfebvre's willingness to consecrate the four bishops may reflect his stature in the SSPX; sedevacantist bishops are often reluctant to create new bishops for their micro-groups because this immediately creates rivals for leadership. (Williamson has not done so yet - at least not publicly.) I wonder if the choice of two very young priests as bishops was influenced by this, but I suspect it is more likely to have reflected desire to have as long a period as possible before the SSPX would need to choose between new consecrations or the loss of episcopal orders.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 27, 2013 10:36:11 GMT
The question arising here is if a seven week delay would have seen the deaths of both bishops and/or the breakout of the cataclysm as described (the following year, which both bishops lived to see, showed the possibility of World War III retreat; as I remember, I did not seem particularly imminent in 1988 - it seemed a lot more likely prior to Gorbachev's election in 1985 than afterwards).
The post-facto justification, which has a lot of conspiracy theory thrown which insults people like Father Bisig and ultimately Father Aulagnier, who gave a lot of good service to the SSPX, do not answer the question put. Could SSPX supporters not acknowledge that a delay of less than two months for Rome to show the expected bad faith would not have stengthened their hands and their arguments considerably?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 14, 2013 20:26:52 GMT
According to Fr Hunwicke's blog, Bishop Williamson seems to be moving towards sedevacantism and is talking of setting up his own seminary and claiming the Econe one has been a failure. Since Fr Hunwicke does not link to or quote from Bishop Williamson's statements (presumably he does not want to direct people to that site, for the same reason that I do not link to neo-fascist sites)it is not possible to assess these claims. liturgicalnotes.blogspot.ie/2013/12/bishop-williamson.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 19, 2014 22:07:31 GMT
Fr HUnwicke offers some ironic thoughts on whether the SSPX are "separated brethren" whose insights we should absorb and might be accommodated over Vatican II as attempts are being made to accommodate the Copts over Chalcedon and the NEstorians over Ephesus, or whether they are disobedient subjects to be beaten into submission a la the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, with the SSPX as much as the Vatican tending by their acts to produce the second outcome: liturgicalnotes.blogspot.ie/2014/01/sspx-is-it-ecumenism-or-is-it-not-1.html
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 20, 2014 19:53:04 GMT
Not quite sure to be honest, and I think that if the SSPX were to reconcile, they would have done so by now. If anything, in Ireland at any rate, I think they are falling apart and growing more and more introvertionist by the day, as anyone who read Fr. McDonald's (PP at the Athlone SSPX) piece in last month's SSPX newsletter will testify.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2014 20:21:38 GMT
Is this the piece? Fr MacDonald is accusing Youth Defence of not being really pro-life because they aren't Catholic enough, and claiming that they are not pro-life because they favour induced delivery to save the mother's life when the baby is too young to survive. BTW he seems to think the Rallies for Life were run by Youth Defence, when they were run by the Pro-Life Campaign. (He complains "Activists had their banners of the Blessed Virgin Mary taken from them by YD's hired mercenaries".) www.ireland.sspx.net/monthly%20bulletin/2013/SJB%20Nov%202013.pdfThere is also a piece by the SSPX superior for Britain and IReland, Fr Morgan, commenting on Bishop Fellay's recent invocation of Fatima and denunciation of Pope Francis as a Modernist, strongly implies that Pope Francis is Antichrist.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 4, 2014 21:45:37 GMT
Two things that strike me as dubious straight away about the SSPX "pro-life" piece. (1) It flat-out says that induced delivery to save the mother's life is NEVER justified even when there is not the slightest chance that the baby can be saved and it is certain that otherwise both mother and baby will die. There is no suggestion that any good can be achieved by the mother's death or that it will do anything to save the baby, yet he says that the ONLY legitimate option is for the mother to accept death. I would like to see this sustained by some sort of reasoned argument other than an argument from authority. (2) The authority he gives is a statement from Leo XIII. Given that this is a matter of life and death I would like him at the very least to address the possibility that the development of medical science since Leo's time (obvious examples would be diagnostic tools and methods which allow the child's death in the womb to be ascertained, antibiotics which can reduce or moderate the risk of infection). Again, I would like to see an orthodox and expert moral theologian comment on this, but the SSPX writer is flat-out saying that his is the only legitimate position and there is no room for argument whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 4, 2014 21:47:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2014 12:59:08 GMT
In relation to my comments on the SSPX priest's article on abortion, I ought to clarify myself further. I repeat that I am not a moral theologian and we could benefit from some expert comment. First, I accept that directly killing the child to save the mother is wrong, and that the mother should if necessary accept some risk to save her child. My objection to Fr MacDonald's view is (a) He does not engage with any other view at all. He simply quotes Leo XIII as the be-all-and-end-all of the matter, and declares that anyone who disagrees with him is a murderer. He does not give the YD leaders whom he is criticising any leeway for good intentions, or outline at any length why they are mistaken. He simply calls them a bunch of abortionists and so far as he is concerned that is all there is to it. It's as much a matter of TONE as of substance; he assumes anyone who disagrees or questions is beneath contempt, and he must be obeyed without question.
(b) He does not address specific application. Does he maintain - and he seems to maintain - that in a situation such as the Savita case where a miscarriage was already taking place and could not be prevented, and that the longer it took the more danger there was to the mother from infection (and I might add that this particular case would not arise in LEo XIII's time given how much less was known about infection/antibiotics) that it is NEVER legitimate to accelerate delivery? This is the hardest of hard cases and he ignores it. Is he saying that Professor Bonnar - a practising Catholic and gynaecologist with a long pro-life record - is inciting to mortal sin when he says he would have done so?
I speak on all this subject to correction and I would very much like to know more, but it does seem to me as if this SSPX denunciation of YD (in some respects on false grounds, as when he blames them for actions by the PLC) is as much about boundary maintenance - asserting that the SSPX alone is to be trusted and must be obeyed without question - as it is about abortion.
Once again, I speak subject to correction and submit to legitimate authority.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 6, 2014 22:53:16 GMT
Ignis Ardens is no loss. I looked it up a few times and was struck by the sheer volume of racism, misogyny (one poster praised Mel Gibson for beating up his mistress as "knowing how to deal with women") and all-round hatred. I suspect its demise is due to the strength of Williamson support within the British SSPX.
BTW I was recently solicited online to buy a truly foul book produced by a Williamson supporter. I will not give its title or author's name as I do not want to advertise the vile thing, but the cover showed a Hasidic Jew shouting in exultation as the Twin Towers exploded and the flames formed themselves into a Star of David with a "Z" in the centre. The contents list included a denunciation of the SSPX leadership for not defending Williamson when he was attacked "like Jesus", and the book's webpage had a photo of Williamson holding a copy. The usual Holocaust denial, claim that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were authentic, etc featured prominently and there is apparently a description of Satan holding a meeting in Hell to organise a conspiracy with the JEws. How edifying that this writer claims to be so well acquainted with what goes on in Hell; if he keeps on writing this sort of stuff he will be even better acquainted with it in future...
|
|
|
Post by eircomnet on Feb 6, 2014 23:56:06 GMT
I had a lot of dealings with the prolife groups & except for Bernie Smith's Precious Life group I am aware that there was an aggressive hostility to people who brought religious posters to the Pro Life rallies. A number of people I know remonstrated with the organisers to no effect. a number of people have become completely disillusioned with many of the elements in Pro Life as a result. To tell the truth I didn't feel they deserved to have their campaign come to a successful issue despite the amazing effort they put into it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 7, 2014 0:29:31 GMT
To be honest I agree with the policy of downplaying religious posters etc but I can see how it comes across as authoritarian. The new issue of CATHOLIC VOICE has a piece by Bernie Smyth expressing a view similar to yours. I would be interested in getting other opinions on it. (I think the CV has lifted it from Lifesite NEws, - link below) www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-left-god-out-of-the-battle-irish-pro-life-leader-on-how-abortion-was-legI think that avoiding public displays of piety does not amount to "leaving God out of it"- But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Feb 7, 2014 1:35:55 GMT
hibernicus are you sure that the Rally for Life wasn't organised by Youth Defence but by PLC? A pro-lifer on Twitter told me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 7, 2014 11:36:28 GMT
My understanding was that the Rally for Life was organised by the PLC and the March for Life by Youth Defence. I was at both and there were very different styles of protest involved (including the display of specifically religious placards and slogans, which was discouraged at the former but not the latter). There was certainly a YD presence at the former and a PLC one at the latter, but it was fairly clear which was predominant. Might your correspondent have confused the two events?
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Feb 8, 2014 0:31:09 GMT
"Also Fr. Morgan has desperately tried to salvage the situation by stating that the view of Fr. McDonald did not represent that of the SSPX." Young Ireland... Where did Fr. Morgan state this?
|
|