|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Sept 20, 2010 14:26:48 GMT
Fr Morgan is certainly nothing to write home about. But it is a radical difference if the SSPX are stationing two of their Irish priests in Ireland - this is a real first.
What took them so long?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 6, 2010 12:07:31 GMT
Here is a nice piece on the Transalpine Redemptorists of Orkney and their break with the SSPX and reconciliation with Rome. two points are worth noting: (a) The extent of the hostility displayed towards them by former SSPX confreres, to the extent of hatemail in some cases. (b) The way in which their regularisation seems to have been delayed and strung out, which is not very encouraging - I wonder have the "official" Redemptorists anything to do with it? I also wonder why they chose to be Redemptorists rather than, say, Benedictines? Their lifestyle and location seem more monastic than missionary. Has anyone got more informaton on them? www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2010/10/01/%E2%80%98when-we-left-the-stones-came-from-behind%E2%80%99/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 8, 2010 11:22:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 8, 2010 11:25:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Oct 14, 2010 11:27:44 GMT
That strikes me as very odd. The official position of the SSPX is that the NO Mass is not invalid per se. How this translates to their priests and supporters in practice is quite another matter.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 14, 2010 12:01:13 GMT
Linking to RORATE CAELI is slightly hazardous as the links often fail to work. The post was on 3 October and here are the comments to which I refer. If Fr. Aulagnier still holds the position these people ascribe to him (and they appear to have grounds for so doing) I really can't see how he could be reconciled with Rome as he has been. Holding such views in the SSPX is bad enough, doing so in a community set up under Summorum Pontificum is odd to say the least:
David Werling said... This is a despicable comment:
"The NO establishment has a distinctively devious manner of neutralising its opponents now that the SP has persuaded once stout traditionalists into believing they are part and parcel of the reform of the reform which has charcteristic phenomenological nature about it. All they can hope to receive are crumbs from the masters table which, understanding the NO after 50 years for what it is, will be precious few."
To accuse Fr. Aulagnier of being part of the "reform of the reform" is absolutely ridiculous, and demonstrates just how little you know about this man.
Fr. Aulagnier has always held that the novus ordo is neither legitimate nor orthodox, so how can he be accused of being part of a "reform of the reform"? He has always been, and always will be, in favor of abrogating the novus ordo all together. He, however, has the foresight and intelligence to know that no one other than the pope will ever have the power to do that.
If you want to criticize Fr. Aulagnier on religious liberty or some other issue, that's your prerogative. However, to criticize him in regards to the liturgy is completely out of line.
Few priests in the traditionalist movement have done more to ensure the survival of the Traditional Latin Mass in the post VCII era than has Fr. Aulagnier. You should apologize and offer Fr. Aulagnier your sincere thanks for all the real and courageous work he did so you can have the Traditional Latin Mass today.
04 October, 2010 01:24
B. said... LeonG:
You are obviously unaware of Fr. Aulagnier's writings. His reaction to the accompanying letter to the Motu Proprio, where the pope says that a priest "cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books" was an article that was entitled "I exlude celebrating according to the new books on principle", listing his reasons to do so.
04 October, 2010 20:03 LeonG said... Mr B.
Contrary to your assumption I am very well aware of his writings and the fact that he knew he was taking a calculated risk in redefining his position. Let us hope we never have to defend the integrity of The Holy Mass and ou right to hear & say it as did our Roman Catholic forebears in sixteenth century England. The difference this timne would be that the NO with its and its new catholic adherents would most probabaly support our demise, however that may transpire. I doubt if there would be much assistance we could rely on from the libral modernist Vatican either.
06 October, 2010 07:51
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 14, 2010 13:27:30 GMT
It should be noted that there are stories in circulation that the Institute of the Good Shepherd may be subject to an apostolic visitation shortly, though for very different reasons the one due to take place in this country.
In these circumstances, I am sure Father Aulagnier will not be grateful to his admirer for statements like this.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 9, 2010 11:36:52 GMT
Here is a link to the website of an anti-semitic nutjob denouncing the SSPX for not being anti-semitic enough. Various people claiming to be SSPX supporters (mostly anonymous) join the chorus in the comments box. It is a good sign if the SSPX are being denounced by such people; by them to be dispraised is no small praise. One of the posters claims that Fr Angles' relatives who were killed by the Nazis (mentioned in the SSPX Ireland statement denouncing holocaust denial, which these people particularly detest) were Spanish Republican refugees in France who died in a German labour camp. This would make a certain amount of sense, though a caveat - the posters are clearly using this claim to discredit Fr Angles, and as they assume everyone who disagrees with them must be a Jew or a stooge of the Jews, their statements as to matters of fact should be treated with extreme scepticism unless and until they can be independently confirmed. Linking to these lying historical falsifiers does not of course mean I endorse their views, quite the reverse. One can study plague bacilli to seek a cure for the disease without being a plague bacillus oneself. revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/04/some-questions-for-hierarchy-of-society.htmlHat tip to "readytogo" on the ongoing "Strange death of conservative Ireland" thread on Politics.ie I suspect he is Shane posting under another name. www.politics.ie/culture-community/141929-strange-death-conservative-ireland-29.htmlFurther down the same thread, BTW, you will find an atheist signing himself "Toland" declaring that everyone who makes a particular criticism of the views of the political philosopher John Rawls on religion and poliical debate is not only mistaken but a deliberate liar. Is this another alias for hazelireland/nosferatu, or are there a lot of atheists who go in for this style of "argument"? [BTW the writer "Toland" is criticising (for an article in the IRISH TIMES, where else!) actually endorsed the view that "the death of Christendom Ireland" is a good thing, denounced opponents of the Civil partnership Bill and praised Irish Evangelical groups who accepted it!]
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 10, 2010 15:35:18 GMT
Read the whole politics.ie thread about death of conservative Ireland and I see what Hibernicus means about Toland. I think him in denial. But the stuff 'ready to go' (who is almost certainly Shane) has unearthed is terrifying, though hopefully it is only a minority opinion among SSPX heads.
Seven Stars seems to keep himself informed. I was sorry, though, I had to agree with ready to go's description of the Brandsma Review which reminded me of what Askel said about it on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 10, 2010 16:14:45 GMT
Some of their criticism of the BRANDSMA seems to be for being anti-distributist, presumably referring to some of Jim Lothian's free-marketering articles. I am not a laissez-faire fan, but I think there are real problems with distributism and I don't like the tendency of some trads to treat it as an article of faith.
One spot of amusement on that thread on the holocaust denier website was the Pixie who had just realised that there is a tension between being a holocaust denier and arguing that Pius XII has not received due credit for his efforts to protect Jews duting World War II - because if there was no Holocaust,what was Pius XII protecting those Jews from?
|
|
|
Post by shane on Nov 11, 2010 14:07:48 GMT
Good detective work. That is me. Toland (named after the Whig philosopher John Toland) seems to be Jaime Hyland, whose blog is www.aggressive-secularist.com/ I do agree with him though that secularism doesn't necessarily mean being anti-religious. But did this really originate with conservative Christians? I note that Sunny Hundal (of the Liberal Conspiracy blog) has criticised the National Secular Society (founded by Charles Bradlaugh in 1866) for conflating their militant atheist agenda with secularism: www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1060
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 16, 2010 13:28:17 GMT
There are different definitions of secularism - the big legitimate issue which underlies the SSPX complaints on this point is whether they all boil down to the same thing in the end. Let's take a few examples: (a) De Valera's Ireland was theoretically a secular state in the sense that it was not formally confessional; the church influenced legislation because the majority of the people wished it to be so. (b) The US allows believers to operate in politics as individuals and recognises religious bodies as associations, but increasingly interprets its laws in such a way that courts will strike down laws inspired by religious belief unless a secular rationale can also be advanced for them. (c)French-style laicite; religious belief is specifically excluded from the public sphere, and the state polices (and to a considerable extent controls) religious bodies to enforce this. Religious freedom is held to be a right on individuals only, and not to extend to forming institutions or associations built on these beliefs. (d) Officially atheist states, like the old communist bloc (and as advocated by some British secularists). The state is committed to the view that atheism is true and religious belief is false and harmful; it activey combats religious belief, penalises its adherents, and seeks to win away the next generation by indoctrination and various inducements.
The SSPX position I think is that these all slide towards the last, because once you accept the principle that the state in principle should be neutral on religious belief this implies that religion is in some sense irreducibly subjective. (As the nineteenth-century anglican Christian Socialist Frederick Maurice put it - if Christ is King by the will of the people, does this mean the people are entitled to depose Him and choose another King?) The problem with the SSPX position is that it has so often in practice meant declaring that Christ is King by the will of the army and the secret police, who exact their own price in blood and worship for their services in securing the kingdoms of the world.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 21, 2010 18:16:27 GMT
RORATE CAELI reports Bishop Williamson has now hired a notorious neo-nazi as his defence lawyer www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19978542&postID=3890166440939806582Here is the SSPX response From DICI: The Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has learnt by the press of Bishop Richard Williamson’s decision, just ten days before his trial, to dismiss the lawyer charged with his defense, in favor of a lawyer who is openly affiliated to the so-called neo-Nazi movement in Germany, and to other such groups. Bishop Fellay has given Bishop Williamson a formal order to go back on this decision and to not allow himself to become an instrument of political theses that are completely foreign to his mission as a Catholic bishop serving the Society of Saint Pius X. Disobedience to this order would result in Bishop Williamson being expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X. Menzingen, november 20 of 2010. Fr. Christian Thouvenot, general Secretary END The Ignis Ardens types will mourn if Williamson is kicked out as he deserves Even the ultra-dotty PKTP thinks W has gone too far: [FROM RORATE combox linked above} Of course, this means that the window of opportunity for W. to reverse course closes at the end of this month. Let us suppose that W. does reverse course. That would leave Fellay in an untenable position. He'd be forced to keep W. in the S.S.P.X while, at the same time, the Society would be tarnished by association with a man who once founded 'Viking Youth' in imitation of Hitler Youth (and the indirect reference to His Holiness, coming especially after this recent condom brouhaha, would not be appreciated in heraldically-challenged Rome). W. is now connected irrevocably to Viking Youth, Hitler Youth, Fascist Youth, Neo-Nazi Youth, and other groups which are as insane as the communists are, if it is possible to be that insane. If Fellay cannot jettison Williamson, Fellay and the S.S.P.X get connected with Viking Youth too. So Fellay, politically-speaking, really must remove W. now. He must find a way. I don't think that W. would have pulled this latest stunt unless he meant to create an excuse to leave. He knows that his continued presence and this trial will be more of a trial for the S.S.P.X than for himself. But why would W. leave having associated himself with the very people who murdered Archbishop Lefebvre's father? As a zealous and uncompromising royalist (and the same M. Lefebvre was also that), I am vehemently against all fascists and Nazis, just a I am vehemently against all communists. This is not about Williamson's views on a point of secular history, which he has every right to hold. This is about W. connecting himself to the anti-Catholic philosphy of fascism. Fascism and Naziism, like liberation theology and Marxism, should be suppressed in the Church with extreme prejudice. I'd say that W. will be gone by the opening of Advent. Pray for him. P.K.T.P. 21 November, 2010 07:51
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 24, 2010 14:58:39 GMT
Looks like Dickie caved in and fired the new lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 7, 2011 9:33:21 GMT
This item from a pro-SSPX blog is depressing in more ways than one. First, that we have a community of traditionalist nuns joining up with the SSPX because of what they describe as "persecution by conciliar commissars". This does not augur well for healing the schism or for the working of the indult (though I wonder if they were sedes - I find it difficult to believe that nuns with the sort of traditionalist ethos described would have been able to operate within the Church in Gemany from the late 80s). [Added clarification: it does not augur well because if they were in communion with Rome before joining the SSPX this would mean that the SSPX is still drawing away recruits from communion with Rome, and this does not suggest they are preparing for imminent reconciliation - if they were they would keep in touch and prepare for the nuns to join them after reconciliation was finalised - HIB.] The second and much more depressing feature is that the Williamson fans in the combox use the item as excuse for an orgy of holocaust denial, even though one or two posters protest against this hijack. eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/02/mainz-communist-of-nuns-joins-society.html
|
|